Supreme Court in a landmark ruling on 26.04.2024 set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Orissa that dropped charges against the defendants related to a significant land fraud case. The apex court emphasized how crucial it is to hold a thorough trial in order to adequately assess the numerous charges of criminal collusion and forgery pertaining to the unauthorized transfer of land owned by the government.
The case stems from an FIR alleging a conspiracy to fabricate documents for the illegal transfer of government land was filed on 20.05.2005. Under the IPC, the accused, including the respondents, were accused of a numerous crime. They allegedly manipulated income and court records, especially those pertaining to a contentious property in Bhubaneshwar by forging documents. Legal proceedings restored the property’s lease, even though earlier decisions had questioned the veracity of several documents. Under a general power of attorney, accused no. 5 allegedly enabled transactions that were advantageous to the respondents and other parties at discounted prices. The respondents then contested the actions taken against them and others before the High Court after a magistrate court filed procedures against them. The High Court quashed the cognizance order, citing insufficient evidence of direct involvement and criticizing the level of scrutiny at the preliminary stage.
The State contends that the respondents, who are real estate experts, were part of a bigger conspiracy, and that the High Court disregarded this evidence. They argue that the gravity of the transgressions and the possible ramifications for governance were not completely understood.
The Supreme Court believed there is reason to revisit the High Court’s decision after reviewing it. According to investigations, Respondents No. 1 and No. 2 were pivotal in the misuse of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) for illegitimate property transactions. The state suffered large losses as a result of the discounted sale of valuable land, which was made possible by the manipulation of the GPA with the help of a junior clerk.
The Supreme Court observed that Respondent No. 1 and her husband’s involvement, along with their contacts in the real estate industry, points out a planned operation to misappropriate government property. It is said that these transactions were planned and covered up by misusing of their professional power and positions at the workplace.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a thorough trial was necessary to fully ascertain the scope of the conspiracy and the true damage done to the public exchequer. The nature and extent of the alleged conspiracy, the respondents’ involvement, and the actual harm caused need to be judiciously examined in a trial setting.
Keeping in view the same, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court of Orissa. The court ordered to proceed in accordance with law against the respondents also and directed the Trial Court to decide the trial expeditiously.
CASE NAME: THE STATE OF ODISHA (APPELLANT) V NIRJHARINI PATNAIK @ MOHANTY & ANR. (RESPONDENTS), 2024 INSC 346.
NAME: SHUBHI SRIVASTAVA, COURSE: B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), COLLEGE: JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments