Dismissed¶46

Bhabani Shankar Lenka v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 May 2025CRLMC/1529/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR/criminal proceeding refused at investigation stage; Section 528 BNSS; C.T. Case No. 1175 of 2024 / Bharatpur P.S. Case No. 428 of 2024; IPC Sections 465, 420, 468, 471, 120-B (forgery, cheating, criminal conspiracy); family property dispute over gift deeds dated 11.08.2023 and 31.07.2024 and sale deed dated 31.05.2024; reliance on Punit Beriwala vrs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 582; CRLMC dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate forum if chargesheet filed; Orissa High Court, Cuttack; Savitri Ratho, J.; 02.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in case chargesheet is submitted in the case. ¶46

Bhabani Shankar Lenka Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in case chargesheet is submitted in the case.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No. 1175 of 2024 (arising out of Bharatpur P.S. Case No. 428 of 2024) should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS at the investigation stage.

¶26

Court's answer

In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the nature of the allegations, which are at the stage of investigation, the court is not satisfied that the proceedings should be quashed at this stage.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The CRLMC is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in case a chargesheet is submitted in the case.

¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Savitri Ratho, J.), order dated 02.05.2025 in CRLMC No. 1529 of 2025: Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of C.T. Case No. 1175 of 2024 (JMFC-V (Cog Taking), Bhubaneswar), arising out of Bharatpur P.S. Case No. 428 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 465, 420, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC against the petitioners and others (unnamed). Dispute concerns family land dealings — gift deed dated 31.07.2024 by the father in favour of opposite party no.2, and gift deed dated 11.08.2023 and sale deed dated 31.05.2024 by the mother Umarani Lenka; the FIR alleges the land was sold at the instance of petitioner no.1 by practising fraud, and the court noted that one deed was registered at the mother's residence bearing her LTI. Relying on Punit Beriwala vrs. The State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 582 (quashing power to be exercised sparingly, believing the averments in the complaint), and noting that investigation was in progress, the court held it was not satisfied that the proceedings should be quashed at this stage and dismissed the CRLMC, granting liberty to approach the appropriate forum in case a chargesheet is submitted. In connected I.A. No. 955 of 2025, filing of the certified copy of the FIR was dispensed with for the time being and the I.A. disposed of.

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 11-Jul-2025 12:28:50

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

CRLMC No. 1529 of 2025

¶5

1. Bhabani Shankar Lenka

¶6

….. Petitioners

¶7

2. Pragyanbati Lenka

¶8

3. Ajit Kumar Satapathy

¶9

Mr. B.P. Rath, Advocate

¶10

-versus-

¶11

….. 1. State of Orissa Opposite Parties

¶12

2. Prasanta Kumar Lenka

¶13

Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC

¶14

CORAM:

¶15

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

02.05.2025

Order No.

(Through hybrid Mode)

¶20

¶21

I.A. No. 955 of 2025

¶22

This I.A. has been filed for dispensing with filing of certified copy of the FIR.

¶23

Filing of the certified copy of the F.I.R. is dispensed with for the time being.

¶24

The prayer is allowed. 4. The I.A. is disposed of.

¶25

CRLMC No. 1529 of 2025

¶26

This CRLMC has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No. 1175 of 2024 pending in the court of the learned JMFC-V (Cog Taking), Bhubaneswar arising out of Bharatpur P.S. Case No. 428 of 2024 which has been registered for commission of offences

¶27

Page 1 of 4

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 11-Jul-2025 12:28:50 pu nish able under Sections 465, 420, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC against the petitioners and others (unnamed).

¶30

Mr. B.P. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is the brother of the informant, petitioner no.2 is their sister and petitioner no.3 is husband of petitioner No.2. He submits that a gift deed dated 31.07.2024 has been executed before the Sub-Registrar, Salepur by the father-Jata Kishore Lenka in favour of the opposite party no.2 in respect of the some lands recorded in his favour which has been annexed as Annexure-2. Their mother Umarani Lenka had executed a gift deed on 11.08.2023 in favour of the petitioner no.1 and sale deed on 31.05.2024 in favour of one Manoj Kumar Nayak, copies of which have been annexed as Annexure-3. False allegations have been made against the petitioners by the opposite party no.2 as their mother has excluded him from her property by executing the gift deed in favour of petitioner no.1 only. His further submission is that even if the allegations against the petitioners is accepted to be true, they make out a civil dispute.

¶31

The copy of the FIR, copies of the gift deeds and sale deed have been annexed to this CRLMC.

¶32

Perused the FIR where allegations have been made that his father wanted to sell a land in the village for his personal need. When the deed was about to be finalized, it was found that the property has already been sold on 30.05.2024. On enquiry it was found that the land had been sold at the instance of Petitioner No.1 by practising fraud. This led the informant to make enquiry and then

¶33

Page 2 of 4

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 11-Jul-2025 12:28:50 it

¶36

it was found that the property where they were residing had been gifted to petitioner No.1-Bhabani Shankar Lenka on 11.08.2023. This has been done on the advice of petitioner No 2, his younger sister (Pragyanbati lenka) and her Husband (Ajit Kumar Satpathy) Petitioner No 3. This was the first crime made by them on 11, August 2023. He alleged that their mother Uma Rani Lenka is bed ridden nearly since 2 years and not able to speak properly. She is subconscious, except eating and sleeping, has no other activities. So she could not have made the gift. Their father was therefore looking after her property. But neither he nor anybody else is aware of the fraudulent transactions. Mr. Bhabani Shankar Lenka, is a medical practioner and Pragyanbati Lenka is a lawyer by profession have taken their mother to an unknown place in ambulance in the name of diagnosis and may have threatened/ forced her to execute the deeds . Some allegations had been made by his sister about his wife who raised objection when she heard about the property status. After that she called the police and they appeared in Bharatpur PS. All her allegations are baseless and false. She is making allegation taking the advantage of being a lawyer.

¶37

Perused the copy of the gift deed and sale deed as Annexure-3 and 3 A to this CRLMC. It appears that registration of one of the deeds has been done at the residence of Umarani Lenka and the document bears her LTI.

¶38

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Punit Beriwala vrs. The State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2025 INSC 582 , has held as follows:

¶39

Page 3 of 4

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 11-Jul-2025 12:28:50

¶42

“WHILE QUASHING, MUST BELIEVE ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT

¶43

29. It is settled law that power of quashing of a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection and while exercising this power, the Court must believe the averments and allegations in the complaint to be true and correct. It has been repeatedly held that save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court should not be used in a routine manner according to its whims or caprice.”

¶44

Investigation in the case is in progress.

¶45

In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the nature of allegations, which are at the stage of investigation, I am not satisfied that the proceedings should be quashed at this stage.

¶46

The CRLMC is therefore dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in case chargesheet is submitted in the case.

¶47

puspa

¶48

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶49

Page 4 of 4

Bhabani Shankar Lenka v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhabani Shankar Lenka v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashwini Kumar Hota Vs Ashok Kumar Sahu

Saroj Kumar Sahu Vs Kishore Chandra Sahu

Saroj Kumar Sahu Vs Kishore Chandra Sahu

Dharmananda Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Sarat Nayak@Sarat Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Akshyaya Patnaik Vs State of Odisha