Serious Allegations Of Misuse Of Official Position: Supreme Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Former IAS Officer
The Supreme Court upheld Gujarat High Court’s Order dismissing the Appellant’s prayer for quashing the FIR registered under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court dismissed former IAS Officer Pradeep N. Sharma’s Appeal seeking quashing of the FIR but allowed his Appeal for anticipatory bail in the land allotment case noting the serious allegations of misuse of official position against him.
The Court upheld Gujarat High Court’s Order dismissing the Appellant’s prayer for quashing the FIR registered against him under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by the Mamlatdar Office (complainant), alleging that Sharma, in his capacity as District Collector, had wrongfully restored government land to private allottees despite their ineligibility.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale held “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 Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat appeared for the Appellant, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Maninder Singh represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The land allotment had been previously canceled due to the allottees’ failure to cultivate the land as required. The complainant contended that the Appellant’s Order was passed with a view to unduly favour the allottees and without verifying the authenticity of the power of attorney holder representing them.
The Appellant had moved the Gujarat High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that the allegations were frivolous and motivated. He argued that his decision was taken in a quasi-judicial capacity and did not amount to criminal misconduct. In 2018, the High Court dismissed his Petition, holding that the allegations required investigation and could not be quashed at the preliminary stage.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the allegations against the Appellant involved serious misuse of official power and could not be dismissed outright. The Court held that the FIR and supporting materials prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences, warranting a full investigation.
“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,” the Bench explained.
The Court remarked, “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.”
Consequently, the Court held, “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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal to quash the FIR, but allowed the Appeal for granting anticipatory bail.
Cause Title: Pradip N. Sharma v. State Of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 291)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat; AOR Divyesh Pratap Singh; Advocates Rajesh Inamdar, Ajay Desai and Amit Sangwan
Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; Senior Advocate Maninder Singh; AAG Mitesh Amin; AOR Swati Ghildiyal; Advocates Kanu Agarwal and Neha Singh
