9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1511 - SC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - Appellant - State has vehemently submitted that in the present case the High Court has erred in quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and Section 420 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - It is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the High Court in exercise of its powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and Section 420 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that the High Court has entered into the merits of the allegations and has conducted the mini-trial by weighing the evidence in detail which as such as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions is wholly impermissible. As held by this Court in the case of State of Haryana And Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors. 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT the powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure could be exercised either to prevent an abuse of process of any court and/or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the said decision this Court had carved out the exceptions to the general Rule that normally in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure the criminal proceedings/FIR should not be quashed. It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule - As held by this Court the powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is very wide but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. In the present case the allegations were with respect to allotment of 10 plots which were required to be allotted under the discretionary quota. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the Respondents Accused were connected with the Department concerned with regard to allotment of the plots directly or indirectly - it cannot be said that the criminal proceedings against the Respondents - Accused were in any way an abuse of process of law and/or the Court. The allegations against the Respondents - Accused are very serious including hatching a criminal conspiracy in allotment of 10 plots in the discretionary quota arbitrarily and to their own family members/relatives. There are specific allegations with respect to huge loss caused to the B.D.A. and the public exchequer as according to the prosecution the plots were allotted at throw away prices. All these aspects are required to be considered at the stage of trial and not while considering the application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. While quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has not at all adverted to itself the aforesaid aspects and has embarked upon an enquiry as to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence collected during the investigation as if the High Court was conducting the mini-trial. Therefore as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the Respondents herein - original Accused Nos. 4 5 and 3 - Smt. Pratima Mohanty Shri Prakash Chandra Patra and Shri Rajendra Kumar Samal is unsustainable both in law and/or facts and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy and abuse of official position. 3. Exercise of discretionary power in allotment of plots and its implications. 4. Legal standards for quashing criminal proceedings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The primary issue in this case was whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court had quashed the proceedings on the grounds that there was no material evidence indicating that the accused had influenced the allotment of plots or were involved in any criminal conspiracy. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into the merits of the case and conducting what amounted to a mini-trial, which is impermissible at this stage. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the allegations do not constitute any offense or are inherently improbable. 2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Abuse of Official Position: The case involved serious allegations against public servants who were accused of hatching a criminal conspiracy to allot prime plots to their relatives at throwaway prices, thereby causing a significant loss to the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (B.D.A.) and the public exchequer. The accused were alleged to have misused their official positions to favor their family members, violating Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court noted that these allegations were serious and required thorough examination during the trial rather than being dismissed at the preliminary stage. 3. Exercise of Discretionary Power in Allotment of Plots and Its Implications: The judgment highlighted the issue of discretionary allotment of government plots, which often leads to corruption, nepotism, and favoritism. The Supreme Court underscored the need for transparency and fairness in such allotments, emphasizing that public interest should be the guiding principle. The Court suggested that discretionary quotas should be abolished, and allotments should generally be made through public auctions to ensure maximum benefit to the public exchequer and prevent misuse of power. 4. Legal Standards for Quashing Criminal Proceedings: The Supreme Court reiterated the legal standards for quashing criminal proceedings as established in previous judgments, particularly the Bhajan Lal case. It stressed that criminal proceedings should not be quashed unless the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offense, are absurd or inherently improbable, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intentions. The Court found that the present case did not fall within any of these exceptions and that the High Court had erred in quashing the proceedings without sufficient grounds. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused, directing them to face trial along with other co-accused. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining transparency and accountability in the exercise of discretionary powers by public officials and underscores the limited scope of judicial intervention at the stage of quashing criminal proceedings. The Court also called for reforms in the allotment of public properties to prevent corruption and ensure that public interest remains paramount.
|
