Cuttack: Orissa High Court has indicted a court designated for trial of cases under the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act in Cuttack for framing charges against an accused on the basis of a charge sheet filed "in a mechanical manner keeping the truth suppressed".

The economic offences wing (EOW) had filed the chargesheet in connection with a case involving alleged misappropriation, cheating, forgery committed by real estate firm Gajanan Property Dealer and Construction Private Limited in not fulfilling the terms and conditions of agreement executed with parties for a housing project.

The high court pulled up the designated court for rejecting the discharge petition which the real estate firm filed after filing of chargesheet against it and framing charges for cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating and criminal breach of trust under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act.

On perusal of the case records, the high court felt the investigating officer had filed the chargesheet in a mechanical manner without assessing the true nature of the dispute.

Justice S.K. Sahoo observed: "The truth has been kept behind the curtain deliberately and therefore, there is malafideness and arbitrariness in the action of the investigating agency to harass the appellants (real estate firm)".

"The dispute between the parties is primarily civil in nature which has been given the colour of a criminal case resulting abuse of process," Justice S.K. Sahoo observed in his August 27 order, while quashing the order in which the presiding officer of the designated court had framed the charges against the accused real estate firm.

"On the available materials on record, I find no prima facie case for commission of the offences alleged against the appellants. Submission of chargesheet is based totally on unfounded assumptions and it has resulted in causing miscarriage of justice. Therefore, I am of the humble view that the trial court has committed palpable error in dismissing the petition for discharge and in framing charges against the appellants," Justice Sahoo said.