Saraswati Sethi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Aug 2025CRLMP/371/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Direction to register complaint as FIR refused; NHAI land acquisition compensation fraud allegation; Keonjhar; Scheduled Caste complainants; Dillip Kumar Pati; Nabei Sethy; EOW Bhubaneswar; Civil Suits Nos.264 and 156 of 2023; W.P.(C) No.17406 of 2024; W.P.(C) No.22749 of 2024; Lok Adalat settlement; remedy via jurisdictional magistrate complaint; CRLMP disposed of; Chittaranjan Dash, J.; order dated 04.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

None — the direction to register the complaint dated 16.12.2024 as FIR was not granted; the CRLMP stood disposed of with the observation that the Petitioners may approach the jurisdictional magistrate by way of complaint. ¶¶25

Saraswati Sethi Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct Opposite Party No.4 to register the complaint dated 16.12.2024 as FIR and proceed with the investigation into the alleged fraud in disbursement of NHAI land-acquisition compensation.

¶¶17

Court's answer

This Court was not inclined to pass any direction for registration of the complaint as FIR, because the dispute between the parties turns on evidence to find out whether fraud has been committed.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

The proper way for redressal of the grievance is to approach the jurisdictional magistrate by way of complaint.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

The narration in the application involves many facts that need evidence to examine the element of fraud, and upon such examination the court in seisin may itself direct initiation of appropriate action on the criminal side.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, CRLMP No.371 of 2025, Saraswati Sethi & Others v. State of Odisha & Others (Chittaranjan Dash, J.; order dated 04.08.2025): Petitioners, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, sought a direction to Opposite Party No.4 to register their complaint dated 16.12.2024 as FIR, alleging fraud in disbursement of NHAI land-acquisition compensation relating to the property of late Nabei Sethy — Rs.21,08,72,530/- allegedly released to one Dillip Kumar Pati as against Rs.6,96,09,267/- to the Petitioners, who claimed Rs.14,02,41,300/- towards 50% share. Noting the pendency of Civil Suits Nos.264 and 156 of 2023, earlier writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos.17406 of 2024 and 22749 of 2024) and Lok Adalat settlements, the Court held that the question of fraud required examination of evidence, declined to pass any direction, and observed that the proper course was to approach the jurisdictional magistrate by way of complaint; the CRLMP was disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMP No.371 of 2025

¶3

Saraswati Sethi and Others …. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. B. B. Swain, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and Others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. A. K. Apat, Addl. P. P. For O.P. Nos.1 to 4

¶9

Mr. S. S. Das, Sr. Advocate For the Intervenor

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No.

04.08.2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶16

By means of this application, the Petitioners seek

¶17

the intervention of this Court for a direction to the Opposite Party No.4 to register the complaint dated 16.12.2024 as FIR and proceed with the investigation.

¶18

From the narration made in the application, it discloses that the complainant, namely, Saraswati Sethy, Srimati Sethy and Malati Behera belong to scheduled caste community. According to them their property has been acquired by the National Highway Authority and the Land Acquisition Officer processed the compensation

¶19

amount towards acquisition of land by committing fraud on the Petitioners inasmuch as while the major share of the compensation amount was released in favour of one Dillip Kumar Pati to the tune of Rs.21,08,72,530/-, a paltry amount i.e Rs.6,96,09,267/- went in favour of the Petitioners. They alleged that a sum of Rs.14,02,41,300/ought to have been given to the Petitioners being daughters and legal heir of late Nabei Sethy towards 50% share. It is further alleged that to the knowledge of the Petitioners, said Dillip Kumar Pati further took away the said amount Rs.6,96,09,267/- with the help of the officials of the NHAI, Kenojhar as well as the Land Acquisition Officer, NHAI, Keonjhar. The Petitioners having come to know about the aforesaid fraud, filed Civil Suit No.264 of 2023 and Civil Suit No.156 of 2023. The Petitioners also moved a Writ Petition before this Court vide W.P.(C) No.17406 of 2024. It is also submitted that one Meena Sethi and Supani Sethi daughters of late Maheswar Sethi also lodged written complaint before the police alleging that they have also been deprived of their legitimate share in the compensation. However, the police did not come into action despite the fact that the EOW, Bhubaneswar was also apprised of the aforesaid complaint through post.

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

In course of hearing, this Court vide order dated 28.07.2025 directed the Petitioners to submit the copies of the plaint in respect to all the Suits pending, if any before any court.

¶22

The Petitioners have filed the copies of the plaint besides an affidavit. In the affidavit, they have referred to the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.22749 of 2024 on 18.07.2024 wherein the Court has observed with regard to the manner in which the property has been handled in acquisition by the National Highway Authority and the various irregularities committed therein.

¶23

According to learned counsel for the Petitioners, the observation made in order dated 18.07.2025 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.22749 of 2024 is sufficient to indict the conduct of Opposite Party No.3-Dillip Kumar Pati who allegedly to have committed fraud thereby trying to swindle the sum of Rs.28,04,81,797/-, out of which the Petitioners have 50% share towards the compensation. The copies of the plaint filed by the learned counsel found not appended to the case record in the digital format. However, the hard copy of the plaint placed before this Court, reveals various facts emerge between the parties that is required to be thrashed out in examination of the

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

documents in the form of evidence. The record reveals that matter has also been taken before the Lok Adalat and some settlements have arrived between the Parties basing upon which the Petitioners have also moved the Court before the Civil Judge to strike out some properties from the purview of the decision. In such background of the case, while this Court is not inclined to pass any direction as the very dispute arises between the parties is more based on evidence to find out if fraud has been committed. The proper way would be to approach the jurisdictional magistrate by way of complaint, if any for redressal of the grievance. Even otherwise, the narration made in the application involves so many facts that it needs evidence to examine if there is element of fraud and upon such examination, the court in seisin itself may direct to initiate appropriate action in the criminal side. With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMP stands disposed of.

¶26

(Chittaranjan Dash)

¶27

Judge

¶28

AKPradhan Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 06-Aug-2025 15:35:20

¶30

Page 4 of 4

Saraswati Sethi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswati Sethi 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Swami Vs State of Orissa

Sangeeta Dash Vs State of Odisha

Sangramjit Nanda Vs State of Odisha

Pradipta Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Jitendra Pradhan Vs State

Kumudini Pradhan Vs State of Odisha