2025 INSC 291
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
VIKRAM NATH, J. AND HON’BLE PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.)
PRADIP N. SHARMA
Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. OF
2025 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.354 OF 2019) With Criminal Appeal No.
OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.2812 OF 2019)-Decided
on 28-02-2025
Criminal
(A)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Factual Dispute
-
Offences under Sections 409, 219 and 114 IPC -
Allegations against the applicant involve serious allegations of misuse of
official position, criminal breach of trust, and alleged corrupt practices in
the discharge of public duties - The case against the applicant pertains to his
passing an order that allegedly favoured private allottees despite their long
absence from the country and despite his own transfer from the concerned
jurisdiction - The contentions raised by the State, particularly regarding the
lack of jurisdiction of the applicant at the time of passing the impugned
order, the alleged collusion in disregarding the legal status of the land, and
the purported misrepresentation involving deceased appellants, all indicate
that the matter requires further and thorough investigation - The scope of
allowing a prayer for quashing is limited and is to be exercised only in
exceptional cases where it is manifestly clear that no offense is made out -
However, in the present case, the FIR and the materials relied upon by the
prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences,
warranting a full-fledged investigation - Moreover, the allegations against the
appellant cannot be adjudicated merely based on the pleadings and require scrutiny
of official records and procedural compliance - At the stage of investigation,
Courts should refrain from pre-emptively quashing criminal proceedings unless
there is an evident abuse of process - Since the appellant's contentions relate
to factual disputes that need verification through proper investigatory
mechanisms, it would be inappropriate for this Court to exercise its
inherent powers to quash the proceedings at this stage - Do not find any merit
in the appeal warranting interference with the impugned order passed by the
High Court declining to quash the FIR
(Para 17 and 19)
(B)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Granted - Offences under Sections
409, 219 and 114 IPC – Held that considering the nature of
the allegations and the fact that the matter is to be investigated primarily
based on documentary evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the relief of
anticipatory bail to the appellant - The offences alleged pertain to the
exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than
direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial
interrogation - The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity for the
custodial interrogation of the appellant beyond scrutiny of official records,
which can be done without placing him in detention - Additionally, the
appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation,
and no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that he has evaded
or obstructed the investigation in any manner - Furthermore, it is well-settled
that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not
essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records
and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre-trial detention -
FIR in question is part of a series of similar allegations against the
appellant, and in the absence of any concrete material indicating a likelihood
of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the grant of anticipatory
bail is justified - Appellant upon arrest may be released upon furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer
in the present case, subject to following two conditions: Firstly, the appellant will extend all
cooperation during the investigation; and Secondly, if the Investigating
Agency requires custodial investigation, it may apply to the concerned
Magistrate for appropriate orders, and the said application will be
considered/decided on its own merits without being influenced by any of the
observations made by us.
(Para
18 to 20)
JUDGMENT
1.
Leave granted.
2.
The present appeals have been preferred by the appellant – accused in First
Information Report[In short “FIR”]
being I-C.R. No. 33 of 2011 registered on 12.05.2011 with Tankara Police Station, Rajkot (Rural), Gujarat for offences
under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860[In short, “IPC”].
3.
Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 354 of 2019 has been preferred against the
judgment dated 12.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in R/Criminal
Misc. Application No. 7960 of 2011, dismissing the appellant’s prayer for
quashing of the above-mentioned FIR.
4.
Appeal arising from SLP(Crl) No. 2812 of 2019
challenges the order of the High Court dated 28.02.2019 in R/Criminal Misc.
Application No. 2367 of 2019, whereby the High Court rejected the appellant’s
prayer for anticipatory bail in the abovementioned case.
5.
The facts giving rise to both the above proceedings are that an FIR being
I-C.R. No. 33 of 2011 was registered against the appellant for offences
under Sections 409, 219 and 114, IPC at the instance of
respondent no.2 in the appeal arising from SLP(Crl) No. 354 of 2019. The
complainant was the Mamlatdar of village Tankara at the relevant time and had
lodged the FIR on behalf of the State on 12.05.2011, alleging that the
government land bearing survey no.2 admeasuring 65 acres, situated at
Village Anandpara was allotted to one D.J. Mehta and others on 19.05.1970 by
way of Santhani for personal cultivation as per the entry made in village Form
No. VI. Since the said allottees were not staying in the village and were not
cultivating the land personally, the then Deputy Collector, Morbi registering
the case as Sharatbhang No.40/2000, forfeited the land in favour of the
Government vide order dated 15.11.2000. The said allottees in the year 2007,
therefore filed an appeal before the then Collector, Rajkot (i.e. the present
appellant). In the said appeal, the appellant, as the Collector, set aside the
said order of the Deputy Collector and directed to restore the land in the name
of the said allottees vide order dated 27.03.2008. The said order passed by the
appellant was taken into revision by the Principal Secretary, Revenue
(Appeals), Ahmedabad, who set aside the order of the appellant and directed to
enter the name of the Government in the revenue records. According to the
complainant, the appellant, who was the District Collector, Rajkot at the
relevant time, had, knowing fully well that the said allottees were staying
abroad and not cultivating the land as per the order of allotment, and
therefore were not eligible to get back the land, set aside the order
passed by the Deputy Collector, with a view to unduly favour them and that too
without verifying the genuineness of the power of attorney holder, who had
filed the appeal before the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) on behalf of
the legal heirs of the deceased allottees, Mr. Mehta and others. Thus, the
appellant acting against the interest of the Government and with a view to
unduly favour the allottees, had passed the order with malicious intention, and
thereby had committed the offences under Sections
409, 219 and 114 of the IPC.
6.
Appellant preferred an application (R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 7960 of
2011) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[In short, “CrPC”], seeking quashing of
the FIR on the grounds that the allegations were baseless and did not disclose
any cognizable offense, and further that the complaint was malicious and was
filed only because the appellant’s brother was at odds with the political
leaders of the area. It was further urged that the police department had been
insistent upon harassing the appellant by registering multiple cases against
him. It was argued that the FIR was lodged by the Mamlatdar, acting on
behalf of the State, without proper examination of the factual matrix, including
the allotment of government land and its subsequent use by the allottees. The
appellant contended that the alleged acts of omission or commission were done
in discharge of his duties in the quasi-judicial proceedings and did not amount
to criminal misconduct or breach of trust as contemplated under the penal
provisions invoked.
7.
The High Court, after perusing the FIR and the supporting materials, observed
that the allegations pertained to a serious matter involving government land
and its misuse, which prima facie disclosed commission of cognizable offences
under the IPC. The High Court noted that the disputed facts, such as the
cultivation of the land by the original allottees and the subsequent alleged
violations, required thorough investigation and could not be adjudicated at the
preliminary stage. It was held that quashing the FIR at the nascent stage would
amount to preemptively stifling a legitimate investigation into potential abuse
of public resources. It was further observed that from a bare reading of the
order passed by the appellant, it appears that an appeal was entertained even
though it was filed with a delay of seven years,
the order was passed with all the material against the allottees on
record, and without verifying the bonafides of the power of attorney holder.
The application seeking quashing of the FIR was thus dismissed on 12.12.2018.
8.
Subsequently, the appellant approached the High Court again through R/Criminal
Misc. Application No. 2367 of 2019, seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with the present FIR. The appellant sought anticipatory bail primarily on the
grounds that the registration of multiple cases against him is a result of
malafide intent and an abuse of the legal process by the State authorities. It
was contended that many of the alleged incidents took place before 2009, and
despite securing bail in some cases and obtaining stays on investigation in
others, fresh complaints are being lodged against him each time he is released
on bail. He argued that this indicates a pattern of targeted harassment.
Furthermore, he had retired from service by then, and therefore, there was no
reasonable apprehension that he would engage in similar offences if granted
anticipatory bail. Additionally, he asserted that the prosecution’s case is
primarily based on documentary evidence, and given his past cooperation
with the investigating agency, custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
9.
The High Court in its order dated 28.02.2019 refused to grant anticipatory bail
to the appellant. It observed that serious allegations had been made against
the appellant regarding his misuse of powers under the Bombay Land Revenue
Code, 1879 by condoning a seven-year delay in filing an appeal and passing
orders in favor of certain allottees, despite the land having been taken over
by the government. Notably, the appellant had already been transferred from
Rajkot to Bhavnagar at the time he issued the impugned order, which the High
Court found questionable. The High Court also noted that the allottees in question
were not cultivating the land and were residing abroad, casting doubt on the
legitimacy of the transactions. Moreover, the appellant faced similar
allegations in another case involving the allotment of government land,
reinforcing the perception of misconduct. The High Court also considered the
rejection of the appellant’s earlier quashing petition under Section
482 CrPC and noted that, despite the appellant having filed an SLP before
this Court, no interim relief had been granted in his favor. Given the prima
facie case against the appellant, the number of cases registered against
him, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, the Court concluded that
discretionary relief under Section 438 CrPC was unwarranted.
10.
The appellant has challenged both these orders in the two appeals before us.
11.
We have heard shri Devadatt Kamat, learned senior counsels for the appellant
and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing for the respondents at length.
12.
The grounds taken before us in both these appeals are identical to those raised
by the appellant before the High Court. Learned senior counsel for the
appellant submitted that the appellant, a retired IAS officer, had passed the
impugned order in his official capacity as the then District Collector, in due
exercise of his quasi-judicial functions. It was contended that the FIR No.
33/2011, registered under Sections 114, 219, and 409 of the
IPC, is frivolous and motivated, having been lodged after an unexplained delay
of four years. The appellant was neither entrusted with the property in
question nor had dominion over it, and his decision was in accordance with the
powers vested in him under the law. The High Court, while rejecting the
appellant’s petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of
the FIR, failed to appreciate these aspects. It was further submitted that the
High Court, in Special Civil Application No. 14966/2012, had previously upheld
the appellant’s order dated 27.03.2008, thereby reaffirming the legality of his
actions. The appellant contended that the allegations of bias or malice in the
exercise of his official duties are unfounded, particularly since his decision
merely restored an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. The
appellant emphasized that passing an erroneous order, if at all, does not
constitute a criminal offense, as otherwise, every public officer would be at
risk of prosecution for performing official functions.
13.
Regarding the denial of anticipatory bail, it has been argued that even if the
allegations in the FIR are assumed to be true, no offence under Section
409 IPC is made out, as the appellant merely adjudicated an appeal in his
official capacity. The allegations under Section 219 IPC were also
unfounded, as the appellant had exercised his judicial discretion in accordance
with the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the appellant had
an unblemished record of over 30 years in the civil services and was
instrumental in the post- earthquake rehabilitation of Bhuj-Kutch. However,
after 2010, multiple FIRs were registered against him, allegedly as a
consequence of administrative decisions that did not align with the interests
of the State Government.
14.
The submissions made on behalf of the State of Gujarat, in both these cases,
before the High Court as well as this Court are the same. It has been submitted
on behalf of the State that the appellant, as a public servant, misused his
position by condoning an unjustified delay of seven years in preferring the
appeal and passing an order that unduly favored the allottees, despite their
absence from India for over two decades. The order in question was passed on
27.03.2008, even though the appellant had already been transferred to Bhavnagar
on 24.03.2008, raising concerns regarding its legitimacy. It was further
contended that the appellant misappropriated government land in favor of
private individuals, thereby committing criminal breach of trust under Section
405 of the IPC. Additionally, it was pointed out that two of the allottees
were deceased, and their power of attorney holder had filed false
verifications on their behalf, which the appellant ignored while passing the
order.
15.
It has been argued that the order dated 27.03.2008 was passed despite the
appellant’s transfer on 24.03.2008. The Deputy Collector had earlier canceled
the allotment of the land after finding that the allottees were not cultivating
the land and were residing abroad. The said cancellation order was challenged
after seven years, and while setting it aside on the ground of violation of
natural justice, the appellant also directed the authorities to mutate the
allottees' names in the revenue records and hand over possession of the land,
despite the government already having taken possession of it. Reference was
made to an order dated 02.09.2013 passed by the High Court, which had set aside
a subsequent decision of the Special Secretary (Revenue Department) and
remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector for reconsideration. It was
contended that, despite setting aside the Deputy Collector’s order for
violating natural justice, the appellant failed to remand the matter back for
fresh adjudication and instead directly issued directions for handing over
possession, thereby exceeding his jurisdiction.
16.
It was further pointed out that the High Court had initially granted a stay on
the investigation against the appellant within 20 days of the FIR being
registered. However, the quashing petition was later rejected on 12.12.2018,
and following this, the investigation resumed. Thus, it would not be in the
interest of justice to quash the FIR or grant anticipatory bail to the
appellant at this stage. Additionally, it has been submitted that the appellant
has multiple antecedents, with at least ten FIRs registered against him,
including one in CID Crime, Rajkot Zone, concerning the alleged illegal
allotment of 150 acres of government land. The State argued that, given the
nature of allegations and the appellant’s involvement in multiple similar
cases, custodial interrogation was necessary, and the prayer for quashing of
the FIR or for anticipatory bail should not be entertained.
17.
The prayer seeking quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings is refused,
as the allegations against the applicant involve serious allegations of misuse
of official position, criminal breach of trust, and alleged corrupt practices
in the discharge of public duties. The case against the applicant pertains to
his passing an order that allegedly favoured private allottees despite their
long absence from the country and despite his own transfer from the concerned
jurisdiction. The contentions raised by the State, particularly regarding the
lack of jurisdiction of the applicant at the time of passing the impugned
order, the alleged collusion in disregarding the legal status of the land, and
the purported misrepresentation involving deceased appellants, all indicate
that the matter requires further and thorough investigation. The scope of
allowing a prayer for quashing is limited and is to be exercised only in
exceptional cases where it is manifestly clear that no offense is made out.
However, in the present case, the FIR and the materials relied upon by the
prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences,
warranting a full-fledged investigation. Moreover, the allegations against the
appellant cannot be adjudicated merely based on the pleadings and require
scrutiny of official records and procedural compliance. At the stage of
investigation, Courts should refrain from preemptively quashing criminal
proceedings unless there is an evident abuse of process. Since the appellant's
contentions relate to factual disputes that need verification through proper
investigatory mechanisms, it would be inappropriate for this Court to
exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings at this stage.
18.
However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter
is to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court is
inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The
offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the
passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt
criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not
demonstrated any necessity for the custodial interrogation of the appellant
beyond scrutiny of official records, which can be done without placing him in
detention. Additionally, the appellant has expressed his willingness to
cooperate with the investigation, and no material has been placed before this
Court to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the investigation in any
manner. Furthermore, it is well-settled that anticipatory bail can be granted
where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the
allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured
without pre- trial detention. The Court also takes note of the fact that the
FIR in question is part of a series of similar allegations against the
appellant, and in the absence of any concrete material indicating a likelihood
of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the grant of anticipatory
bail is justified. Accordingly, while the appellant shall cooperate with the
investigation as and when required, he shall not be taken into custody, subject
to conditions imposed hereinafter to ensure his participation in the inquiry
process.
19.
In light of the observations made above, we do not find any merit in the appeal
warranting interference with the impugned order passed by the High Court
declining to quash the FIR, in question, i.e. FIR I-C.R. No. 33/2011 registered
with Tankara Police Station, Rajkot (Rural). Accordingly, the appeal arising
out of SLP (Crl.)No.354 of 2019 is dismissed.
20.
The appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.2812 of 2019 is
allowed. Further, we provide that the appellant upon arrest may be released
upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the present case, subject to
following two conditions:
i. Firstly, the
appellant will extend all cooperation during the investigation; and
ii. Secondly, if the
Investigating Agency requires custodial investigation, it may apply to the
concerned Magistrate for appropriate orders, and the said application will be considered/decided on its own merits without being
influenced by any of the observations made by us.
21.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
------