STATE OF ODISHA Vs. PRATIMA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Orissa dated 04/09/2019 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3177 of 2017 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4804 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said applications under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. and has quashed the criminal proceedings against the private respondents herein ­ original accused Nos. 4, 5 and 3 - Smt. Pratima Mohanty, Shri Prakash Chandra Patra and Shri Rajendra Kumar Samal, the State of Odisha has preferred the present appeals.

(2.) That an FIR was lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Vigilance Cell Unit Office, Bhubaneswar before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar Division, Bhubaneswar alleging inter alia that on preliminary enquiry it was found that certain public servants occupying crucial positions in Bhubaneswar Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'B.D.A.') and in the Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha (hereinafter referred to as, 'H.&U.D. Deptt.') surreptitiously distributed prime plots in Commercial Complex District Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. It was alleged that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy and by abusing their official positions, the officials of the B.D.A. and of the H.&U.D. Deptt., Government of Odisha, surreptitiously distributed prime plots. That at the relevant time the original accused No.4 ­ Smt. Pratima Mohanty was serving as Steno to Vice­ Chairman, B.D.A. Original accused No.5 ­ Shri Prakash Chandra Patra was serving as Jr. Assistant Allotment Section, B.D.A and original accused No.3 ­ Shri Rajender Kumar Samal was the Dealing Assistant, Allotment Sec. - II, B.D.A. and Personal Assistant to Minister, Housing and Urban Development (original accused No.6). Apart from the criminal conspiracy raised by all the accused persons it was further alleged that there was no advertisement in providing opportunity to general public regarding availability of B.D.A. plots for sale and their sale prices. It was alleged that keeping the general public in dark, the public servants in B.D.A. (accused) who had access to such information as insiders, distributed the prime plots among themselves or their relatives and that too at minimal rates as compared to the prevalent rates in the area and thereby causing undue pecuniary advantage to the allottees and corresponding loss to the B.D.A. and the public exchequer without any public interest.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - State has vehemently submitted that in the present case the High Court has erred in quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1) (d) of the Act and Sec. 420 read with Sec. 120B IPC in exercise of powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.