Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.708 of 2024 (A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.) Sunita Choudhury …. Petitioner (s) -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Sr. Adv. along with associates For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA Mr. Arun Kumar Nayak, Adv. (for O.P.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-18.02.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.03.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, in the present petition, seeks quashing of Bhubaneswar SCV P.S. Case No.13 dated 02.11.2023 registered under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 506 and 120-B of the IPC against him and others. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i. Harihar Rath, father of Opposite Party No.3, was the owner in possession of the land in question prior to 1964. He sold the said land to Baja Mahabhoi, S/o Raghu Mahabhoi of Village Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified p. 2 Kalarahanga, Bhubaneswar, by registered Sale Deed No.891 dated 08.02.1964. ii. In the settlement of 1974, the land stood recorded in the name of Harihar Rath. iii. Thereafter, Baja Mahabhoi sold the said land to Kedarnath Swain by registered Sale Deed No.5522 dated 02.08.1978. iv. Subsequently, Kedarnath Swain sold the land to Smt. Sunita Choudhury, the present petitioner, by registered Sale Deed No.11132007997 dated 31.12.2020. v. The District Sub-Registrar, Bhubaneswar, sent information regarding the registration of the said sale deed to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, pursuant to which Suo Motu Mutation Case No.1464 of 2021 was initiated. After enquiry, by order dated 03.04.2021, mutation was allowed and the Record of Rights was prepared in the name of the petitioner. vi. Thereafter, Gouri Shankar Rath, along with his brothers, all sons of late Harihar Rath, instituted Civil Suit No.1839 of 2023 along with I.A. No.1 of 2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, seeking temporary injunction in respect of the said land. vii. By order dated 13.09.2023, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, passed an ex parte order of status quo in I.A. No.1 of 2023. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified p. 3 viii. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed FAO No.195 of 2023 before the Court of the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. ix. Subsequently, Opposite Party No.3 lodged an F.I.R. before the Special Crime Unit, Bhubaneswar, which was registered as Bhubaneswar SCV P.S. Case No.13 dated 02.11.2023 under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 506 and 120-B of the IPC. In the F.I.R., the informant alleged that the land covered under Hal Khata No.707, Plot No.923 measuring Ac.0.220 decimals of Mouza Kalarahanga was the ancestral property of his family inherited from his father, late Harihar Rath, and that his father had not sold the said land. It was further alleged that Baja Mahabhoi had purchased the land from Harihar Rath by registered Sale Deed dated 08.02.1964 and subsequently sold it to Kedarnath Swain, from whom the present petitioner purchased the land by registered Sale Deed dated 31.12.2020. The informant further alleged that upon perusal of a photocopy of the sale deed dated 08.02.1964, the signature of Harihar Rath appearing therein was not genuine, on the basis of which the F.I.R. was registered for the aforesaid offences. x. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said F.I.R., the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the said F.I.R. and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified p. 4 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The petitioner submitted that admittedly, as per the ROR of 1962, late Harihar Rath was the recorded owner of the land in question, who sold the land vide registered Sale Deed No.891 dated 08.02.1964 to Baja Mahabhoi, who thereafter possessed the same in his own right as the absolute owner. However, in the 1974 settlement ROR, the land was wrongly recorded in the name of Harihar Rath. It is submitted that the said ROR does not create any right, title or interest in favour of Harihar Rath as he had already sold the land by registered sale deed dated 08.02.1964 to Baja Mahabhoi. ii. The petitioner further submitted that Baja Mahabhoi, by registered Sale Deed No.5522 dated 02.08.1978, sold the land to Kedarnath Swain for due consideration accompanied with delivery of possession, who in turn, for his legal necessity, sold the land in question to the present petitioner by registered sale deed dated 31.12.2020 for due consideration. It is submitted that prior to purchasing the land, the petitioner verified the antecedent title of her vendor as well as the vendor of her vendor and obtained the Encumbrance Certificate, and being satisfied with the legitimate right, title, interest and possession of the vendor, purchased the land in question. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified p. 5 iii. It is further submitted that in Civil Suit No.1839 of 2023, the informant along with his brothers sought declaration of right, title, interest and possession and cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the present petitioner and her mutated ROR. However, no relief has been sought for cancellation of the sale deed executed by Harihar Rath in favour of Baja Mahabhoi dated 08.02.1964 or the registered sale deed dated 02.08.1978 executed by Baja Mahabhoi in favour of Kedarnath Swain. iv. The petitioner submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner forged any document or valuable security and therefore the question of using any forged document as genuine does not arise. Accordingly, the ingredients of Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC are not attracted. v. It was further submitted that there is no material in the F.I.R. to show that the petitioner issued any threat to the informant so as to attract the offence under Section 506 IPC. vi. The petitioner contended that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature, inasmuch as the informant along with his brothers has already instituted Civil Suit No.1839 of 2023 before the competent Civil Court in respect of the same land, which is presently sub judice. It is also submitted that Opposite Party No.3 is a retired Director General of Police of Jharkhand and an F.I.R. has been registered on his persuasion. vii. It was further submitted that the registered sale deed dated 08.02.1964, which has been alleged to be fraudulent in the year Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified p. 6 2023, is more than sixty years old and therefore a presumption of due execution is attached to the said sale deed under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872. viii. The petitioner asserted that since prior to the filing of the F.I.R., a civil suit in respect of the self-same land concerning the self-same sale deed dated 08.02.1964 is already pending before the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in Civil Suit No.1839 of 2023, the continuation of the criminal proceedings by virtue of the F.I.R. against the present petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law and cause harassment to the petitioner. ix. It was further submitted that the petitioner is presently aged about 59 years and was born on 11.08.1964. Therefore, at the time when the alleged sale deed dated 08.02.1964 was executed and registered, the petitioner had not even been born. Hence, the allegation of forgery or impersonation cannot, under any circumstances, be attributed to the present petitioner with regard to the said sale deed dated 08.02.1964. x. The petitioner also submitted that she is a bona fide purchaser who, after purchasing the land, has got the same mutated in her name, obtained the ROR in her favour and has been paying rent. xi. It was contended that when a properly constituted civil suit at the behest of the informant and his brothers is pending before the Civil Court prior to the filing of the present F.I.R., the filing of the F.I.R. and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an attempt to mount pressure on the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified p. 7 petitioner to accede to the alleged claim of the informant in the civil suit. xii. The petitioner further submitted that none of the offences alleged in the F.I.R. are made out in the present case. xiii. It was further submitted that Harihar Rath was an educated person who had executed the sale deed and got it registered on 08.02.1964. The informant has lodged the present F.I.R. only because the valuation of the land has increased considerably in the meantime. xiv. On the above grounds, it was submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is contrary to law and the same is liable to be quashed. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite parties made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The informant, who is a retired Director General of Police, approached the Special Crime Unit, Bhubaneswar, pursuant to which Bhubaneswar SCV P.S. Case No.13 dated 02.11.2023 was registered under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 506 and 120-B of the IPC. It is submitted that the investigation is presently in progress and the matter is still at the initial stage, and the charge sheet has not yet been filed by the Investigating Officer. ii. It is further submitted that the F.I.R., on its face, discloses commission of cognizable offences against the accused persons, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified p. 8 including the present petitioner, and therefore the present CRLMC seeking quashing of the F.I.R. is not maintainable at this stage. iii. Learned counsel submitted that an accused has no right to participate in the proceedings at the stage of registration of the F.I.R. and investigation. Only when the Court takes cognizance of the offence and issues process does the accused acquire a right to challenge the proceedings. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Nagawa v. V.S. Konjalgi1, Sashi Jena v. Khadal Swain2 and Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel3, wherein it has been held that an accused has no right to be heard or to participate in the proceedings at the pre-process stage. iv. It was further submitted that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. If the allegations made in the F.I.R., on a plain reading, disclose commission of cognizable offences, the High Court should not quash the F.I.R. or the consequential proceedings. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal4. v. Learned counsel further submitted that even if a civil dispute is pending between the parties, the same would not by itself justify quashing of criminal proceedings where the allegations disclose serious offences such as forgery, fabrication of documents and 1 (1976) 3 SCC 736. 2 (2004) 4 SCC 236. 3 (2012) 10 SCC 517. 4 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified p. 9 fraudulent transfer of title. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsingh Karmur v. State of Gujarat5 and M. Viswanathan v. S.K. Tiles and Properties Pvt. Ltd.6, wherein it has been held that offences involving forgery and fraudulent documents affecting property rights have a bearing on societal interest and cannot be treated as purely civil disputes. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 6. It is a well settled position of law that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. 7. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Supreme Court, while delineating the circumstances in which such power may be exercised, illustrated certain categories of cases where the High Court may intervene to quash criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the 5 (2017) 9 SCC 641. 6 (2008)16 SCC 390. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified p. 10 following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified p. 11 where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand7 further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court must carefully examine whether a dispute which is essentially civil in nature has merely been given a cloak of criminality. It was observed as follows: “ 12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” 9. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, it is necessary to turn to the present factual matrix and to examine the specific allegations made in 7 (2013) 11 SCC 673. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified p. 12 the impugned F.I.R. to determine whether the present case calls for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 10. A bare perusal of the F.I.R. indicates allegations that the accused persons, including the present petitioner, in connivance with other co- accused persons, fraudulently executed forged documents in respect of the disputed land and, on the basis thereof, effected transfer of title and mutation of the said land. The F.I.R. thus alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 506 and 120-B of the IPC. 11. At this stage, this Court is only required to consider the limited question of whether the allegations made in the F.I.R., taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The Court is not required to embark upon an enquiry as to the genuineness of the allegations or to examine the merits of the defence taken by the accused. On a plain reading of the F.I.R., the allegations cannot be said to be so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 12. The contention of the petitioner that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature, particularly in view of the pendency of Civil Suit No.1839 of 2023, cannot automatically result in the quashing of the criminal proceedings when the allegations in the F.I.R. disclose commission of cognizable offences involving alleged forgery and use of forged documents in relation to immovable property. Such allegations, if Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified p. 13 taken at their face value, cannot be said to be purely civil in nature so as to warrant interference by this Court at the threshold. 13. It is also pertinent to note that the investigation in the present case is still in progress and the charge sheet has not yet been filed. The issues raised by the petitioner relating to the genuineness of the documents and the rival claims over the land pertain to disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and must be determined at the appropriate stage in accordance with law. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the F.I.R., taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences and therefore do not warrant interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. V. CONCLUSION: 15. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash Bhubaneswar SCV P.S. Case No.13 dated 02.11.2023 registered under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 506 and 120- B of the IPC. 16. The CRLMC is, therefore, dismissed. 17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th March, 2026