[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Prashant @ Prasant Kumar vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) on 25 June, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No. 240 of 2025
Prashant @ Prasant Kumar .... Appellant
Senapati
Mr. B. K. Dhal,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Respondent
Mr. Sanjay Das
Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 25.06.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of this revision application, the Petitioner has
called into question the legality, propriety and correctness of the
order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Special C.J.M.
(VIG.), Bhubaneswar in VGR No.46 of 2016, arising out of
Vigilance Cell, Cuttack Case No.44 of 2016.
2. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a
retired employee of UCO Bank. On 10.07.1991, he applied for a
Middle-Income Group (MIG) plot under the Kalinga Nagar Plotted
Development Scheme, 1991, floated by the Bhubaneswar
Development Authority (BDA), situated within Subudhipur Gram
Panchayat, Bhubaneswar. Pursuant to the application and upon
payment of the required fees, the Petitioner was provisionally
allotted a general MIG plot bearing Registration No. KNM-
0125/93. Subsequently, vide letter No. 13566/AL/BDA,
CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 1 of 8
Bhubaneswar dated 10.11.1997, final allotment was made and
physical possession was handed over to the Petitioner. While the
Petitioner remained in possession of the said plot, BDA, in
collaboration with Keshari Estate Pvt. Ltd., launched a separate
housing project under the Lingaraj Vihar Housing Scheme, Phase-II
at Mouza Pokhariput. The Petitioner applied for an MIG-II house
under this Scheme and deposited all requisite amounts in terms of
the terms and conditions of allotment. Vide letter dated 21.04.2001,
the Petitioner was informed that one MIG-II category house was
allotted in his favour, subject to deposit of the balance sum within
three months. Accordingly, the Petitioner availed a bank loan and
duly deposited the amount. In due course, public lottery was
conducted by BDA on 21.12.2001 for allotment of HIG-II/MIG-
I/MIG-II and LIG category houses under the Lingaraj Vihar
Housing Scheme, Phase-II at Mouza Pokhariput. The Petitioner
emerged successful and House No. C-134 under the MIG-II
category was allotted to him. The Petitioner, vide letter dated
31.01.2002, was intimated of this allotment and was subsequently
called upon to take physical possession of the same, which was
handed over upon deposit of Rs.5,000/- towards electricity charges.
More than two decades later, the General Administration
Department, Government of Odisha, vide order No. SER-IAS-
0010-2014(H)-21545-AIS-I dated 02.08.2014, constituted a Task
Force to scrutinise multiple allotments of plots/houses/flats and to
initiate appropriate action against allottees for furnishing false
affidavits or suppressing material facts. On the basis of the said
directive, Vigilance Cell, Cuttack, registered Vigilance Cell Case
No. 44 of 2016 against the Petitioner and other officials of the BDA
under various provisions of the IPC read with Sections 13(2) and
CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 2 of 8
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon
completion of investigation, charge sheet No. 23 dated 14.11.2023
was submitted before the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance),
Bhubaneswar, and cognizance was taken in VGR No. 46 of 2016.
Being aggrieved by the continuance of these proceedings, the
Petitioner initially moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.3505 of 2018,
which stood dismissed for default, and a restoration application in
CMAPL No. 356 of 2021 remains pending. Meanwhile, pursuant to
the Task Force’s enquiry report dated 23.11.2021, the BDA, by
order dated 25.11.2021/26.11.2021, cancelled the allotment of
House No. C-134 at Lingaraj Vihar Housing Scheme, Phase-II,
Mouza Pokhariput, where the Petitioner and his family had been
residing for more than twenty years. This cancellation was
challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12117 of 2022, where
an order of status quo has been granted and the matter is sub-judice.
Meanwhile, on account of repeated summoning and threats
of arrest by the Vigilance Department, the Petitioner moved this
Court in ABLAPL No.7567 of 2022 and, upon directions of this
Court, was released on bail after surrendering before the trial Court
on 24.08.2024. In these circumstances, the learned Special C.J.M.
(Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, passed the impugned order dated
19.03.2025 taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the
Petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby and denying all allegations, the
Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Revision
Petition to assail the impugned order dated 19.03.2025.
3. In the course of hearing this Revision, it was vehemently
argued by Mr. B. K. Dhal, learned counsel for the Petitioner, that
there is no prima facie material against the Petitioner to make him
CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 3 of 8
liable under the offences alleged. Learned counsel further submitted
that the allotment of the houses in favour of the Petitioner was made
at the relevant time on the basis of an affidavit filed by him stating
that he did not own any house or house site, either in his own name
or in the names of his spouse or children, within the municipal area.
It was contended that the area under which the allotment was made
was included within the municipal limits only much after the
allotment of the house, and as such, the prosecution’s claim that the
Petitioner had multiple allotments within the municipal area is
incorrect. Accordingly, it was argued that allowing the criminal
proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of
law.
4. Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the State
(Vigilance), on the other hand, submitted that the assertions made
by the Petitioner regarding the correctness of the information
furnished in his affidavit before the authority at the time of
allotment were false to the knowledge of the Petitioner. Learned
counsel contended that both the houses and house sites were
allotted on the basis of information supplied by the Petitioner,
which was untrue, and therefore, there is no merit in his plea for
discharge. According to Mr. Das, the grounds on which the
Petitioner seeks discharge could at best form part of his defence,
which can only be examined during the trial. Furthermore, it was
argued that ample documentary evidence exists to implicate the
Petitioner and to require him to stand trial. Hence, Mr. Das
submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court
is perfectly justified and calls for no interference.
CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 4 of 8
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of
Odisha -Vrs.- Pratima Mohanty reported in (2020)16 SCC 703
while deciding the principles to be followed in exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C called for to follow the
principles as under:-
“6.2 It is trite that the power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in
rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while
examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is
sought, the Court cannot embark upon any enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in
the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR
should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule.
Normally the criminal proceedings should not be
quashed in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation the
charge sheet has been filed. At the stage of discharge
and/or considering the application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. the Courts are not required to go into the
merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if
conducing the minitrial. As held by this Court the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the Court to be
more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent
duty on the Court.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case referred to K.
Raju vs. Bangalore Development Authority reported in 2011 (2)
AIR KAR R 453, as under:-
“8…..It is well established that a public body
invested with statutory powers has to take care not to
exceed or abuses its powers. It must act within the
limits of authority committed to it. BDA is a custodial
of public property. It is not as free as an individual in
selecting the recipients for its largess. For allotment
of properties, a transparent and objective
criteria/procedure has to be evolved based on visionCRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 5 of 8
that a non- arbitrariness. In such action, public
interest has to be prime guiding consideration.”
6. Having perused the facts, the allegations, and the material
placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the core
issue lies in whether there exists prima facie material to substantiate
the Petitioner’s culpability under the charged provisions. The
Petitioner claims that at the relevant time of application and
allotment under the Kalinga Nagar plotted Development Scheme
and the Lingaraj Vihar Housing Scheme, he had no property falling
within the Bhubaneswar municipal limits and that the two
allotments were governed by distinct eligibility criteria under
separate schemes. The Petitioner further asserts that the inclusion of
Subudhipur Gram Panchayat under the Bhubaneswar Municipal
Corporation was subsequent to the allotment, rendering the charge
of misrepresentation in his affidavit untenable. On the other hand,
the Vigilance Department contends that the Petitioner suppressed
material facts to obtain multiple allotments under public schemes,
contrary to the applicable policies, and that the present proceedings
ought to be tested in trial rather than in summary jurisdiction under
Section 239 Cr.P.C. The materials placed before the trial Court at
the stage of charge include copies of the allotment letters, the
Petitioner’s affidavit of eligibility, and statements under Section
161 Cr.P.C. of the BDA officials who handled the Petitioner’s
applications.
7. While the Petitioner emphasises that the Kalinga Nagar
plot, Mouza Ghatikia, was outside municipal limits at the time of
allotment, this is a mixed question of fact and law, intertwined with
documentary and oral evidence, which cannot be conclusively
decided without a full-fledged trial. Whether the Petitioner was
CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 6 of 8
aware of the extension of municipal boundaries, and whether his
affidavit at the time of applying for the Lingaraj Vihar house was
factually accurate or misleading, are matters that necessarily require
adjudication after appreciation of evidence during trial. Equally
significant is the State’s argument that any procedural infirmity in
allotment, if proved, would reflect upon the public servants of BDA
and the Petitioner jointly, attracting the rigour of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. Thus, given the settled position that at the stage of
framing of charge or considering discharge under Section 239 of
CrPC, the trial Court is not to conduct a meticulous evaluation of
evidence but to assess whether the accusation discloses a prima
facie case, this Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient
material to proceed to trial. Furthermore, a trial Court’s view cannot
be discouraged merely because another view is possible on the
strength of defence evidence.
8. It is apt to mention here that in the allotment of the houses
to the Petitioner in multiple within the municipal area, if any, in
connivance of the employees of BDA/the authorities of General
Administration is an act subversive of their conduct in the capacity
of public servant. The non-consideration of vital aspect in the
application at the time of allotment of the houses, clearly suggests
the mala fide of the employees concerned. The submissions of the
learned counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that at the time of the
application made by him for allotment of houses under the Scheme
of the Government and his statement made in the affidavit denying
any house/house sites within the Bhubaneswar Municipal area
could at best be a ground for him to relegate from the charges on
merit but apparently it does not give him an immunity to get rid of
the allegations but to face the trial.
CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 7 of 8
9. Adhering to the principles as referred above in the decisions
in the matter of Pratima Mohanty (Supra), this Court finds no
illegality or in propriety in the order impugned passed by the
learned Special C.J.M. (Vig.), Bhubaneswar and as such, this Court
is not inclined to interfere therewith.
10. The CRLREV being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
A.K.Pradhan
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 26-Jun-2025 16:06:17
CRLREV No. 240 of 2025 Page 8 of 8
[ad_2]
Source link