Accused Cannot Rely on Defence at Stage of Charge Framing: Orissa High Court Refuses to Quash Charges in Alleged Plot Allotment Fraud Case

"The trial court is not required to weigh the evidence or assess defence – it only needs to see if the prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case” – In a significant pronouncement Orissa High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Sukhalata Nayak and another, seeking quashing of charges framed against them for alleged fraudulent allotment of a government plot in Bhubaneswar. The Court upheld the order passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, framing charges under Sections 193, 200, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash, while rejecting the petition, clarified the scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing of charge, holding that prima facie satisfaction of the court based on prosecution material is sufficient to proceed to trial. The decision reinforces the well-settled principle that courts should not evaluate defence contentions or evidence at the charge-framing stage, and that only clear cases of legal error, perversity, or complete absence of offence can justify interference under revisional jurisdiction.

“Suppression of Existing Allotment by Using a False Affidavit Justifies Charge-Sheet”: Case Background Involving Government Housing Scheme Fraud

The matter arose out of a government-initiated Task Force inquiry into irregularities in land and house allotments by the Orissa State Housing Board (OSHB) in Bhubaneswar and Cuttack. The inquiry revealed that Petitioner No. 1, Sukhalata Nayak, had allegedly secured an HIG (High-Income Group) plot under the OSHB scheme in 2010 by falsely declaring, through an affidavit, that neither she nor her family members owned any house or plot under any government scheme.

However, the vigilance enquiry found that her husband, Sarat Kumar Nayak, had already been allotted House No. 82 in Kanan Vihar Phase-II, Bhubaneswar under the same housing scheme as early as 1998, and had taken final possession in 1999. Despite this, Sukhalata Nayak submitted an affidavit dated 24.02.2003 swearing to the contrary, which formed the basis for the second allotment.

The Vigilance Department registered a criminal case in 2016 after completing a preliminary enquiry and filed a charge-sheet in 2023, invoking charges under Sections 193 (false evidence), 200 (false declaration), 420 (cheating), and 34 IPC (common intention).

“Trial Court Acted Within Law in Declining Discharge”: Legal Challenge and Petitioners’ Contentions

The petitioners challenged the August 2, 2025 order of the Special CJM (Vigilance) declining to discharge them. They argued:

• At the time of the alleged false declaration, no sale deed had been executed in favour of Sarat Kumar Nayak, and thus, no legal ownership could be said to exist.

• The declaration was made in good faith, and Petitioner No. 2 was unaware of any prior allotment to her husband.

• The allegations involved interpretation of legal ownership, not fraud or criminal intent (mens rea).

• The framing of charges was therefore unjustified and the petitioners were entitled to discharge.

However, the Court found these contentions to be matters of defence, not determinative at the stage of charge framing.

“Accused Cannot Produce Defence Evidence at This Stage”: High Court Applies Settled Principles from Apex Court Precedents

Relying extensively on Supreme Court precedents including State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsingh Kishorsingh Rao (2023), Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra (2012), and State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996), the High Court reiterated that:

“At the stage of framing of charge, the accused has no right to produce materials or documents to disprove the prosecution case... The court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record.”

It was emphasised that the standard to be applied is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but whether allegations, if taken at face value, disclose the commission of the offence. If so, the matter must proceed to trial.

The Court found that:

“The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners indicate that the Petitioners may have a plausible defence to be established through evidence during trial. However, this is not a case where it can be said that the materials brought on record by the prosecution do not prima facie constitute the offences alleged.”

The Court also reaffirmed the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, stating that it cannot be used to reassess evidence or draw inferences on disputed facts.

Charges to Stand – Trial Must Proceed to Test Prosecution Case

In conclusion, the Orissa High Court held that the materials on record—including the affidavit submitted by the petitioner and the findings of the vigilance enquiry—prima facie disclosed the elements of cheating, false declaration, and common intention. The Special CJM (Vigilance) had correctly applied the law in refusing to discharge the petitioners.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, confirming that the petitioners will face trial on the framed charges.

“The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses… the impugned order rejecting the prayer for discharge is found to be proper and justified.”

Date of Decision: 24 October 2025