2021 Supreme(SC) 790

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack)
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
State of Odisha – Appellant
Versus
Pratima Mohanty Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1455-1456 of 2021
Decided on : 11-12-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Normally, criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation charge-sheet has been filed – At the stage of discharge and/or considering application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. courts are not required to go into merits of allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducing mini-trial.
(2) Allotment of public properties must be transparent and has to be fair and non-arbitrary – In such matters public interest only has to be the prime guiding consideration.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of criminal prosecution – 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, court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to reliability or genuineness of allegations made in FIR/complaint – Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule – Normally, criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation charge-sheet has been filed – At the stage of discharge and/or considering application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. courts are not required to go into merits of allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducing mini-trial – Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires court to be more cautious – It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on Court. (Para 6.2)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420 and 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Causing loss to public exchequer – Respondents-accused are public servants – By impugned judgment and order High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed criminal proceedings – High Court has entered into merits of allegations and has conducted mini-trial by weighing evidence in detail which is wholly impermissible – It cannot be said that criminal proceedings initiated against respondents-accused are abuse of process of any court – On the contrary, allegations are an instance of abuse of powers with a mala fide intention and allotment of plots to family members by hatching a criminal conspiracy and to allot plots to family members at throw away price causing loss to B.D.A. and public exchequer – Allegations against respondents-accused are very serious including hatching a criminal conspiracy in allotment of 10 plots in discretionary quota arbitrarily and to their own family members/relatives – Action has to be initiated against officials who are prima facie responsible for illegality in allotment of plots to relatives and/or family members resulting in huge loss to B.D.A. and public exchequer – While quashing criminal proceedings High Court has not at all adverted to itself such aspects and has embarked upon an enquiry as to reliability and genuineness of evidence collected during investigation as if High Court was conducting mini-trial – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 6, 6.1, 7, 8.1, 9 and 10)

(C) Constitution of India – Article 39(b) – Allotment of government largess – Government and/or public authorities like B.D.A. are custodian of public properties – Allotment of public properties must be transparent and has to be fair and non-arbitrary – In such matters public interest only has to be the prime guiding consideration – Allotment of plots in discretionary quota cannot be at whims of persons in power and/or public servants who are dealing with allotment of plots in discretionary quota – When a democratic government in exercise of its discretion selects recipients for its largess, then discretion should be exercised objectively, rationally, intelligibly, fairly and in a non-arbitrary manner and it should not be subjective and according to private opinion and/or whims and fancies of persons in power and/or public servants – Even if guidelines are issued to be followed while allotment of plots under discretionary quota and it is found that many a time they are hardly followed or are manipulated to suit particular circumstances – Best thing is to do away with such discretionary quota and allotments of public properties/plots must be through public auction by and large – Even in case where policy decision is taken to allot plots to a particular class – downtrodden class etc. in that case also guidelines must be strictly followed and allotment must reflect fair play and non-arbitrariness and should have objective, criteria/procedure. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Orissa dated 04.09.2019 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3177 of 2017 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4804 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and has quashed the criminal proceedings against private respondents herein original accused Nos. 4, 5 and 3 – Smt. Pratima Mohanty, Shri Prakash Chandra Patra and Shri Rajendra Kumar Samal, State of Odisha has preferred the present appeals.

Findings of Court:

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.

Result : Appeals allowed.