Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1837 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). Sasanka Sekhar Das …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Directorate of Vigilance, Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bigyan Kuamr Sharma, Sr. Ado. along with Mr. Abhishek Mohanty, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, Addl. Standing Counsel, Vig. (for O.P. Nos.1 & 2) Mr. Gyanaranjan Mahapatra, Adv. (for O.P. Nos.3 & 4) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-30.06.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.07.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner is seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated in connection with V.G.R. No. 74 of 2016, arising out of F.I.R. No. 75 dated 20.06.2016 of Vigilance P.S., Cuttack, culminating in Charge Sheet No. 52 dated 14.12.2023 under Sections 193, 200 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, taking Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 2 cognizance of the offences under Sections 193, 200 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) During the year 1995, the petitioner applied for allotment of an MIG residential plot at Kalinganagar, Bhubaneswar under the Kalinganagar Plotted Development Scheme. Upon due verification and consideration of the application, the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) provisionally allotted an MIG residential plot in favour of the petitioner under the Discretionary Quota vide Letter No. 1731/AL dated 08.03.1996. (ii) Thereafter, the BDA issued another letter dated 28.02.1997 stating that Plot No. K-7/152 had been allotted in favour of the petitioner through a public lottery held on 28.11.1996. Although the allotment had been made in favour of the petitioner, possession of the said plot had not been handed over to the petitioner by then. (iii) While the matter stood thus, one Sri N. Satyaban Choudhury, who had been allotted Commercial Plot No. 68 at the District Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar under the Self- Financing Commercial Scheme, applied for transfer of the said plot in favour of the present petitioner due to his financial difficulties and domestic obligations vide application dated 31.08.2000. The BDA authorities orally directed the petitioner to Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 3 submit an affidavit declaring that neither the petitioner nor any of his family members owned or possessed any plot within the municipal limits of Bhubaneswar. Although the brochure governing the District Centre Self-Financing Commercial Scheme did not require submission of such an affidavit, the petitioner complied with the said direction and submitted an affidavit dated 30.08.2000 along with the transfer application dated 31.08.2000. (iv) Consequent upon the transfer application submitted by Sri N. Satyaban Choudhury, the same was scrutinized by the BDA and, upon due consideration, the allotment of Commercial Plot No. 68 at the District Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar was transferred in favour of the petitioner vide Memo No. 8915/AL/BDA dated 20.12.2000. (v) In consequence thereof, the petitioner submitted an application for third-party allotment on 23.12.2000. Pursuant to the said application, and after following the prescribed procedure, the BDA authorities handed over possession of Commercial Plot No. 68 at the District Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.01.2001. (vi) After taking possession of the commercial plot, the petitioner applied to the Planning Member, BDA for approval of a building plan for construction over the said plot. Upon following the prescribed procedure, the BDA authorities Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 4 approved the building plan in respect of Commercial Plot No. 68 at the District Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. (vii) In the meantime, the petitioner applied for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to avail of a loan for construction of the building. Pursuant to the NOC issued by the BDA, the petitioner executed a tripartite agreement on 27.02.2003 for sanction of the said loan. (viii) While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was informed that possession of MIG Plot No. K-7/152, in respect of which the allotment order had earlier been issued on 28.02.1997, would be handed over, and possession of the said plot was accordingly delivered to the petitioner on 30.03.2005. (ix) Thereafter, the Government of Odisha, in the General Administration Department, constituted a Task Force vide order dated 02.08.2014 to examine irregularities in the allotment of multiple plots to the same persons. Pursuant thereto, the BDA authorities issued a show cause notice dated 07.12.2015 to the petitioner calling upon him to explain his possession of multiple plots in Bhubaneswar. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 30.01.2016 raising his defence. However, the authorities rejected the same and, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing on 25.08.2021, the Secretary, OSD (Task Force), by order dated 03.09.2021, held that the second allotment was liable to be cancelled. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 5 (x) Consequently, the Secretary, Bhubaneswar Development Authority, vide Order No. 563/BDA dated 06.01.2022, cancelled the allotment of Plot No. 68 at the District Centre under the Self- Financing Commercial Scheme. (xi) Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the BDA authorities, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3741 of 2022. By order dated 08.02.2022, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed property. (xii) Thereafter, F.I.R. No. 75 dated 20.06.2016 of Vigilance P.S., Cuttack was registered against the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 200, 202, 420, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the allegation that, while serving as a Government servant in the Indian Railways, he was in possession of multiple plots in Bhubaneswar. (xiii) Upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet No. 52 dated 14.12.2023 was submitted in connection with the aforesaid case under Sections 193, 200 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, by order dated 25.07.2024, the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar took cognizance of the offences under Sections 193, 200 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in V.G.R. No. 74 of 2016 arising out of F.I.R. No. 75 dated 20.06.2016 of Vigilance P.S., Cuttack. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 6 (xiv) Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for discharge before the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar on 10.03.2025. The said application was rejected by order dated 26.03.2025. Being aggrieved by the initiation and continuation of the aforesaid criminal proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CRLMC. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner submits that, in respect of persons similarly situated to him, the Vigilance Department has dropped the proceedings and returned their files to the BDA on the ground of "factual error". The petitioner further submits that, although the BDA authorities have observed that his case also falls within the purview of "factual error", no decision has yet been taken to drop the proceedings against him. (ii) The petitioner further submits that the Vice-Chairman, BDA, vide Letter No. 26413/BDA dated 28.07.2023, sought an intimation as to whether the Vigilance Department had closed the enquiry in respect of allottees alleged to have violated the brochure conditions, so that the authority could take a decision regarding their exclusion from the purview of the Task Force Report upon cross-verification. It is submitted that, in response thereto, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Cuttack, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 7 vide Letter No. 4429/Vig. Cell dated 03.08.2023, informed the BDA that certain case records had been returned after completion of enquiry, as it was found that there was no violation of the provisions of the Scheme. (iii) The petitioner further submits that, in another case involving alleged multiple allotment concerning one Sri Pratap Chandra Mohanty, the BDA closed the proceedings by treating the same as a case of "factual error" vide orders dated 30.11.2024 and 16.12.2024. It is submitted that the case of Sri Pratap Chandra Mohanty is identical to that of the petitioner, inasmuch as he, like the petitioner, had been allotted one residential plot and one commercial plot. The petitioner submits that, despite the similarity in facts, the BDA has adopted a pick-and-choose approach in extending the benefit of closure of proceedings. (iv) The petitioner further submits that the 150th Meeting of the BDA was held on 03.04.2025 to consider, inter alia, the issue of multiple allotments and violation of the brochure conditions. In the said meeting, the cases of nineteen persons, including Sri Pratap Chandra Mohanty, were treated as cases of "factual error". It is submitted that the BDA also recorded that the assets of the said nineteen persons had been inadvertently included in the Special Audit Report of the G.A. and P.G. Department. (v) The petitioner further submits that an In-House Scrutiny Committee meeting was held under the chairmanship of the Secretary, BDA on 05.06.2025, wherein the case of the petitioner Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 8 was considered at Paragraph 8 of the proceedings. It is submitted that the Committee observed that the order cancelling the petitioner's allotment was erroneous. However, since the petitioner had challenged the said cancellation order by filing a writ petition, the authorities did not take a final decision in his case. (vi) The petitioner further submits that he has obtained the order sheets of the meetings of the OSD Task Force up to 16.08.2025, which reveal that the authorities observed that the petitioner's case had been inadvertently included in the list of cases for cancellation. (vii) The petitioner further submits that, his case being similar to those of Sri Pratap Chandra Mohanty and Sri Alok Samal, he is entitled to be treated alike. It is submitted that, while the authorities have closed the proceedings in respect of the aforesaid two persons, the petitioner's case has been unnecessarily kept pending. (viii) The petitioner further submits that the same Task Force has also exonerated one Md. Quiser Iqbal. It is submitted that Md. Quiser Iqbal had also been allotted two plots, namely, one commercial plot and subsequently one residential plot. Upon consideration of his case, the Task Force concluded that there was no violation of the brochure conditions. (ix) The petitioner submits that the mere allotment of a residential plot by the BDA does not preclude him from applying for a Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 9 commercial plot. According to the petitioner, the allotment of a residential plot merely signifies that a plot had been allotted in his favour by the BDA, and his subsequent acquisition of a commercial plot under the District Centre (Self-Financing) Scheme does not constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as there was neither any deception nor any dishonest inducement. (x) The petitioner further submits that, in so far as the MIG plot is concerned, possession thereof was not handed over to him until the year 2005. It is contended that, until possession was delivered, he could not have declared in the affidavit or in any other document that he owned or possessed MIG Plot No. K- 7/152. It is submitted that there is a distinction between allotment and possession, and that the two concepts are legally distinct. According to the petitioner, mere allotment of a plot does not amount to possession. It is further submitted that, in the case of leasehold properties, unless a lease-cum-sale deed is executed in favour of the allottee, the property cannot officially be treated as owned or possessed by such allottee. On the aforesaid premises, the petitioner contends that the offences alleged against him are not made out. (xi) The petitioner submits that there was absolutely no fault on his part in swearing the affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar on 30.08.2000 stating that he did not own or possess any land in Bhubaneswar, as there is a clear distinction Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 10 between mere allotment and actual possession. It is, therefore, submitted that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. dated 20.06.2016, the Charge Sheet dated 14.12.2023 and the order dated 25.07.2024 taking cognizance are wholly unsustainable and liable to be quashed. (xii) The petitioner further submits that the Vigilance authorities, while investigating the matter, failed to take note of Letter No. 2851/VSS-BBSR dated 29.09.2004 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar Division to the Allotment Officer, BDA, wherein, in another case, the Superintendent of Police observed that the BDA Rules did not debar a person holding a commercial plot from being allotted a residential plot and, therefore, as the multiple allotment was not irregular, the file enquiry in the said case was closed. The petitioner further submits that, in the same matter, the Allotment Officer, vide Letter No. 8126/AL dated 21.01.2001, informed the Inspector of Vigilance, Bhubaneswar Division that there was no bar to allotment of a residential plot and a commercial plot to the same person. (xiii) The petitioner further submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while deciding a case of a similar nature, held that there was unexplained delay on the part of the opposite parties in initiating investigation into the alleged multiple allotments after several decades. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench quashed the cancellation order on the ground of delay and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 11 laches. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to draw the attention of this Court to the delay and laches on the part of the BDA. (xiv) The petitioner further submits that the Supreme Court, in Jt. Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist. & Anr. v. D. Narsing Rao & Ors.1, has laid down the principles governing the delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction or corrective powers after the lapse of several years. It is submitted that the Supreme Court held that such delayed exercise of power is not favoured in law, as keeping actions or transactions open to challenge indefinitely would result in avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs. It was further held that, even where no period of limitation is prescribed, the authority must exercise such power within a reasonable time, particularly where third-party rights have intervened. The Supreme Court further observed that even in cases involving fraud, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period from the discovery of the alleged fraud, and that merely describing an act or transaction as fraudulent cannot justify an indefinite extension of time for taking corrective measures. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine. 1 2015 (3) SCC 695. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 12 (i) The opposite parties submit that the petitioner was allotted Plot No. K-7/152 on 28.02.1997 pursuant to his application accompanied by an affidavit dated 27.09.1995 sworn before the Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar under the Kalinganagar Plotted Development Scheme, 1991 of the BDA under the Discretionary Quota. (ii) The opposite parties submit that, on 30.08.2000, the petitioner furnished a false affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in order to secure the transfer of Commercial Plot No. 68 at the District Centre (Self-Financing Commercial Complex), Chandrasekharpur in his favour. It is submitted that, in the said affidavit, the petitioner concealed the fact that Plot No. K-7/152 had already been allotted to him on 28.02.1997 and falsely declared that neither he nor any of his family members owned or possessed any residential site, shop- cum-residential site, shop, commercial site, house or flat within the jurisdiction of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Area or within any of the villages falling under Pipili Tahasil covered by the Bhubaneswar Master Plan. (iii) The opposite parties submit that, on 31.01.2001, the petitioner took physical possession of Commercial Plot No. 68 at the District Centre (Self-Financing Commercial Complex), Chandrasekharpur on the strength of the aforesaid false affidavit and by concealing the material fact of the earlier allotment of Plot No. K-7/152 in his favour. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 13 (iv) The opposite parties further submit that the Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2015 issued by the Government of Odisha provides, inter alia, that the General Administration (Vigilance) Department shall enquire into cases of multiple allotments made on the basis of false affidavits or misleading information in violation of the relevant scheme provisions and initiate appropriate criminal action. It is further provided therein that the BDA, OSHB, CDA and O.A. Department shall cancel multiple allotments and additional units allotted to ineligible individuals or families, as identified by the Task Force, and resume the same. The Notification further stipulates that the BDA, CDA and OSHB shall cancel all allotments of plots, houses and flats made under the Discretionary Quota after 01.01.1995, including pre- and post-possession transfers, and resume the same to the concerned authorities. (v) The opposite parties further submit that, pursuant to the Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2015 issued by the Government of Odisha, the BDA cancelled the allotment of Commercial Plot No. 68 at the District Centre (Self-Financing Commercial Complex), Chandrasekharpur. It is submitted that cancellation of the said allotment does not, in any manner, efface the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner by filing an affidavit on oath containing false statements and by concealing material facts with the deliberate and dishonest intention of obtaining another plot, thereby cheating the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 14 Government/BDA. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner is liable to face trial for the offences alleged. (vi) The opposite parties further submit that the allegations against the petitioner attract the offences punishable under Sections 193, 200 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (vii) The opposite parties further submit that, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal position and the materials collected during investigation, including the charge sheet, the offences alleged against the petitioner are prima facie made out. It is submitted that the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has already been rejected and the said order has not been assailed. According to the opposite parties, the case is pending for framing of charge and trial at the instance of the petitioner. It is further submitted that, in the absence of any challenge to the order rejecting the discharge petition, the F.I.R., the charge sheet and the order taking cognizance continue to hold the field. The opposite parties further contend that the pleas raised and the documents relied upon by the petitioner are matters for trial and cannot be examined at this stage by undertaking a mini trial while exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. (viii) The opposite parties further submit that reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in CBI v. Aryan Singh2; State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr. Anup 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 15 Kumar Srivastava3; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander4; M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI, Bengaluru5; Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam6; State by Karnataka Lokayukta v. M.R. Hiremath7; and State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan8, in support of the settled principle that, at the stage of framing of charge or while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or appreciate the evidence in detail and need only examine whether the materials on record disclose a prima facie case. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 6. The principal question which falls for consideration of this Court in the present case is whether the allegations contained in the F.I.R., the materials placed on record and the charge sheet disclose the commission of offences under Sections 193, 200 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner, warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings, or whether the same are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 3 (2017) 15 SCC 560. 4 (2012) 9 SCC 460. 5 (2020) 2 SCC 768. 6 (2020) 2 SCC 217. 7 (2019) 7 SCC 515. 8 (2014) 11 SCC 709. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 16 7. At the outset, it would be apposite to take note of the settled principles governing exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. At the stage of considering a prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings, this Court is not expected to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or undertake an appreciation of the materials placed on record as would be done during the course of trial. 8. The principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal9, wherein it was observed: “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 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 9 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 17 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 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.” 9. In the present case, the prosecution case is that the petitioner, despite having been allotted MIG Plot No. K-7/152 under the Kalinganagar Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 18 Plotted Development Scheme, submitted an affidavit dated 30.08.2000 before the Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar while seeking transfer of Commercial Plot No. 68 under the District Centre (Self-Financing Commercial Scheme), wherein he declared that neither he nor any of his family members owned or possessed any residential, commercial or other plot within the specified areas. It is alleged that the said declaration was false and that the petitioner suppressed the material fact regarding the earlier allotment of MIG Plot No. K-7/152, thereby inducing the authorities to transfer the commercial plot in his favour. 10. Conversely, the petitioner has sought to defend the said declaration by contending that though allotment of MIG Plot No. K-7/152 was made in the year 1997, possession of the said plot was delivered only on 30.03.2005. According to the petitioner, mere allotment cannot be treated as possession and, therefore, the declaration made in the affidavit dated 30.08.2000 cannot be said to be false. It is also contended that the BDA itself, upon subsequent scrutiny, found several cases of multiple allotments to be cases of "factual error" and that similarly situated persons were granted relief. 11. Upon a perusal of the record, this Court finds that the aforesaid contention raised by the petitioner essentially relates to the factual correctness and interpretation of the declaration made in the affidavit dated 30.08.2000. The question as to whether the petitioner was required to disclose the earlier allotment of MIG Plot No. K-7/152, notwithstanding the fact that possession thereof had not been Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 19 delivered by then, would require examination of the relevant scheme, the terms and conditions of allotment and the evidence available on record. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake such an exercise to determine the truthfulness of the declaration made by the petitioner. The defence of the petitioner that there exists a distinction between allotment and possession is essentially a matter for consideration during trial. Similarly, whether such distinction had any bearing on the affidavit submitted by the petitioner is also a matter which requires adjudication on the basis of evidence. 12. Further, the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the subsequent proceedings before the BDA and the Task Force, contending that his case was similar to other cases where the proceedings were closed on the ground of "factual error". It has also been contended that the order cancelling the commercial plot has been challenged before this Court and an interim order of status quo has been granted. In this regard, it is the considered view of this Court that the subsequent administrative proceedings before the BDA or the Task Force cannot solely determine the question as to whether the petitioner had made a false declaration in the affidavit submitted before the Executive Magistrate or whether such declaration resulted in any dishonest inducement for obtaining the commercial plot. The question of criminal liability has to be examined independently on the basis of the materials collected during investigation. 13. Coming to the contention regarding delay in initiation of proceedings, it was submitted by the petitioner that the issue of multiple allotments Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 20 was examined after considerable delay and that this Court, in similar matters, has interfered on the ground of delay and laches. There can be no dispute with the proposition that unexplained delay in exercise of administrative powers is a relevant consideration. However, in the present proceedings, this Court is not examining the validity of the cancellation order passed by the BDA, but the sustainability of the criminal proceedings arising out of the alleged false affidavit and suppression of material facts. 14. Similarly, the contention that similarly situated persons have been granted relief may also be a relevant circumstance. However, parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right in criminal proceedings where the allegations and materials against each accused have to be examined independently. 15. It is reiterated that at the stage of considering an application for quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or examine the probative value of the materials collected during investigation. If the materials disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication, the proceedings ought not to be stifled at the threshold. 16. It is also well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputed questions of fact or to evaluate the defence sought to be put forth by an accused. At the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is only required to ascertain whether the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 21 uncontroverted allegations and the materials collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case. The correctness or otherwise of the rival versions is a matter to be tested during trial upon appreciation of evidence. 17. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner, if taken at their face value, disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The question as to whether the affidavit contained a false declaration, whether there was concealment of a material fact and whether such concealment resulted in dishonest inducement are matters which require appreciation of evidence during trial. 18. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present case does not fall within the parameters warranting interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The materials available on record disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner and the continuation of the criminal proceedings cannot be said to amount to an abuse of the process of law. V. CONCLUSION: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present CRLMC. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed. 20. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present application and shall not prejudice the petitioner or influence the learned trial court while adjudicating the matter in accordance with law. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:08:59 Signature Not Verified Page 22 21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 14th July 2026/ CUTTACK