Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4919 of 2025 along with CRLMC No.386 of 2026 (Petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.) Sarat Kumar Nayak (In CRLMC No.4919 of 2025) Sukhalata Nayak (In CRLMC No.386 of 2026) &. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha (VIG) &. Opposite Party(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Soubhagya Sundar Das, Adv. For Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, Standing Counsel (Vig. Deptt.) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-19.02.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.03.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above- mentioned matters, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court finds it appropriate to treat CRLMC No.4919 of 2025 as the leading case for the purpose of adjudication. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 2 2. The Petitioner, in the present petition, challenges the initiation and continuance of the proceedings pending against him before the learned Special CJM (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, arising out of VGR No. 70 of 2016. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i. On 18.06.2016, an FIR was lodged before the S.P., Vigilance Cell, Cuttack, pursuant to which a Vigilance P.S. Case was registered and subsequently numbered as VGR Case No. 70 of 2016, now pending before the learned Special CJM (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. ii. In the course of investigation, the Petitioner and his wife came to be implicated in connection with the said case on allegations of submission of a false affidavit and suppression of material facts in relation to allotment of a plot under the Odisha State Housing Board Scheme. iii. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet on 14.11.2023 before the learned Special CJM (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in VGR Case No. 70 of 2016, arraigning the Petitioner and his wife as accused for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 193, 200 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. iv. The learned Court, upon receipt of the said charge-sheet, has proceeded with the matter, and the case is presently pending at the stage of consideration of charge. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 3 v. Being aggrieved by the initiation and continuance of the aforesaid criminal proceeding, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CRLMC. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The Petitioner submitted that Section 193 of the IPC relates to giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding or otherwise, Section 200 relates to using as true any declaration known to be false, and Section 420 pertains to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property or the making, alteration or destruction of valuable security. The Petitioner submitted that in the present case there is no material on record to show that he or his wife has given or fabricated false evidence, used any declaration knowing it to be false, or dishonestly induced delivery of any property from the Odisha State Housing Board. ii. The Petitioner contended that neither he nor his wife has violated any provision of the brochure or made any statement which was false to their knowledge. The Petitioner submitted that a perusal of the materials on record would reveal that at the time of submission of the affidavit by his wife in relation to allotment under the Nandan Enclave Housing Scheme at Kalarahanga, none of her family members owned any residential accommodation within the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation area. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 4 iii. The Petitioner asserted that he had applied for allotment under the Kanan Vihar Housing Scheme in the year 1998 and though provisional allotment and possession were granted in his favour, ownership did not vest in him in the absence of execution of a lease deed or sale deed. The Petitioner further contended that there was no suppression of any material fact by his wife while submitting her affidavit. iv. The Petitioner further submitted that in terms of the governing conditions of allotment, ownership accrues only upon execution of the sale or lease deed and mere allotment or possession cannot be construed as ownership. The Petitioner contended that in such circumstances no element of suppression, misrepresentation or inducement can be attributed to him or his wife so as to attract the offences alleged. v. The Petitioner submitted that even if the materials on record are taken at their face value, no case is made out under Sections 193, 200 or 420 of the IPC against him and continuation of the proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. It was alleged that Sri Sarat Kumar Nayak had submitted an application to the Odisha State Housing Board, Bhubaneswar on 14.10.1998 for allotment of a house under the HIG Core Housing Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 5 Scheme, Kanan Vihar, Phase-II, Bhubaneswar, pursuant to which House No. 82 was allotted in his favour. It was further alleged that thereafter his wife, Smt. SukhalataNayak, submitted an application for allotment of a HIG Plot at Nandan Enclave, Kalarahanga, Bhubaneswar and filed an affidavit dated 24.02.2003 stating that neither she nor her family members owned a house within the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation area. It was further submitted that the said affidavit was false and that material facts regarding prior allotment and possession of House No. 82 were deliberately suppressed, on the basis of which Plot No. HIG (P) 08 at Nandan Enclave, Kalarahanga, Bhubaneswar came to be allotted. ii. It was further contended that the Petitioner had filled in the application form, deposit slips and other documents, and that both the Petitioner and his wife were fully aware of the earlier allotment and the said possession, hence, he had concealed the same in order to fulfil the eligibility criteria. iii. It was further contended that the allotment was made on the basis of self-certification through affidavit and that there was no independent mechanism available to verify pre-existing ownership at the relevant time. iv. It was argued that submission of such false affidavit and obtaining allotment of another HIG Plot constitutes offences under Sections 193, 200 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and accordingly charge-sheet has been submitted. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 6 IV. THE COURT9S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The present petition has been filed challenging the initiation and continuance of the proceeding in VGR Case No. 70 of 2016 pending before the learned Special CJM (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, wherein the Petitioner and his wife have been arraigned as accused for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 193, 200 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 8. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the charge-sheet, is that the affidavit submitted by the wife of the Petitioner in relation to allotment under the Nandan Enclave Housing Scheme contained a false declaration regarding absence of residential property within the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation area, allegedly in suppression of the earlier allotment and possession of a house in favour of the Petitioner. 9. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that, although allotment and possession were made in his favour, ownership had not vested on him in the absence of execution of a lease deed or sale deed, and therefore, the declaration made in the affidavit cannot be construed to be false so as to attract the offences alleged. 10. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, the core issue that arises for consideration is whether the alleged non- disclosure of prior allotment and possession of a residential unit would amount to suppression of a material fact so as to attract the offences alleged. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 7 11. In this context, the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner that ownership had not vested in him in the absence of execution of a lease deed or sale deed cannot be conclusively accepted at this stage. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was allotted a house and was in possession thereof prior to submission of the affidavit in question. 12. The effect of such allotment and possession, and whether the same would fall within the scope of <ownership= under the relevant scheme conditions, as also whether non-disclosure thereof amounts to suppression of a material fact, are issues which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 13. Further, the question whether the declaration made in the affidavit was false, and whether the same was made with knowledge of its falsity or with a dishonest intention so as to secure allotment, are matters which are essentially evidentiary in nature and require adjudication on the basis of evidence to be led before the learned Trial Court. 14. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that at this stage the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. In the present case, the allegations made in the charge-sheet, if taken at their face value, cannot be said to be so inherently improbable or absurd so as to warrant interference at the threshold. The materials on record prima facie disclose the existence of the ingredients of the offences alleged, which require consideration by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 12:43:01 Signature Not Verified Page 8 15. The contentions raised by the Petitioner with regard to absence of ownership and lack of mens rea constitute matters of defence, which may be argued before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage, but cannot be adjudicated in the present proceeding. 16. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground for interference is made out. V. CONCLUSION: 17. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned proceeding. 18. The CRLMC is, accordingly, dismissed. 19. It is clarified that the Petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible contentions before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage, which shall be considered in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made herein. 20. Accordingly, both the CRLMCs are dismissed. 21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st March, 2026/ CUTTACK