STATE OF ODISHA versus PRATIMA MOHANTY ETC.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 11-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
335
STATE OF ODISHA
v.
PRATIMA MOHANTY ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1455 - 1456 of 2021)
DECEMBER 11, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – An FIR was
lodged u/s. 420 r/w.120B IPC and ss.13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the public servants
occupying crucial positions in Bhubaneswar Development Authority
(BDA) and in Housing and Development Department of the State,
alleging that they entered into a criminal conspiracy, abusing their
official position distributed prime plots among themselves and their
relatives at minimal rates – Five Accused persons approached High
Court u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings – The High
Court partly allowed the applications and quashed the criminal
proceedings against original accused Nos.3,4 and 5 mainly on the
ground that the said accused have not dealt with the allotment file
in any manner and there is no material that any of these accused
had influenced any co-accused or any officer of BDA or H&UD.
Deptt. for getting the plots illegally – On appeal, held: 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 the Supreme Court in its various
decisions is wholly impermissible – Looking to the allegations in
the present case against the respondents-accused and considering
the fact that charge-sheet was filed by the Vigilance Cell after a
thorough investigation, it cannot be said that the case falls within
any of the exceptions as carved out by this Court in the case of
Bhajan Lal – The allegations against the respondents-accused are
very of serious nature, as there are specific allegations with respect
to huge loss caused to the BDA 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 u/s.482 Cr.P.C. –
Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 335
335
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
336
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondent-accused
no.3,4 and 5 is quashed and set aside.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing under
– Held: 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 – Normally, the criminal proceedings should not
be quashed in exercise of powers u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. when after a
thorough investigation the charge-sheet has been filed.
Public Property – Allotment of plots – Held: Government and/
or the public authorities like B.D.A. are the 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 – In order to get the
best or maximum price so that it may serve the public purpose and
public interest so as to avoid loss to the authority and/or the public
exchequer – The allotment of plots in the discretionary quota cannot
be at the whims of the persons in power and/or the public servants
who are dealing with the allotment of plots in the discretionary quota.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by
the impugned judgment and order the High Court in exercise of
its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 IPC.
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. vs Ch.
Bhajan Lal And Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604:[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259,
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either
to prevent an abuse of process of any

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.