Under section 482 CrPC, reliability or genuineness of allegations made in FIR/Complaint cannot be scrutinized: Supreme Court of India
While exercising its jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, a High court cannot embark upon any enquiry regarding the reliability and genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power conferred on the High Courts by section 482 CrPC is very wide and thus the High Courts should be more cautious while exercising the. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court before Hon’ble Justice M.R. SHAH &amp; Hon’ble Justice B.V. NAGARATHNA in the matter of STATE OF ODISHA vs PRATIMA MOHANTY ETC [CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1455­1456 OF 2021]. 
The facts of the matter were that certain public servants occupying crucial positions in   Bhubaneswar Development Authority and in the Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha surreptitiously distributed prime plots in Commercial   Complex   District   Centre,   Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Thus an FIR was lodged against the accused. Thus accused approached the High Court with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings against them in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C and by the impugned common judgment and order the High Court has partly allowed the aforesaid applications and has quashed the criminal proceedings against original accused   No.4, original accused   No.5, and original accused No.3. Aggrieved by the said common judgment the instant appeal is preferred.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that in the instant case, the allegations are an instance of abuse of the powers with a mala fide intention and allotment of the plots to the family members by hatching a criminal conspiracy and to allot the plots to the family members at throwaway price causing loss to the B.D.A. and the public exchequer.

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed “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.  Normally the criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation the charge sheet has been filed.    At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducting the mini­trial.  As held by this Court the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are 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.”

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the instant appeal and quashed the impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court in view of the above.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts of the matter were that certain public servants occupying crucial positions in   Bhubaneswar Development Authority and in the Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha surreptitiously distributed prime plots in Commercial   Complex   District   Centre,   Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Thus an FIR was lodged against the accused. Thus accused approached the High Court with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings against them in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C and by the impugned common judgment and order the High Court has partly allowed the aforesaid applications and has quashed the criminal proceedings against original accused   No.4, original accused   No.5, and original accused No.3. Aggrieved by the said common judgment the instant appeal is preferred. 
The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that in the instant case, the allegations are an instance of abuse of the powers with a mala fide intention and allotment of the plots to the family members by hatching a criminal conspiracy and to allot the plots to the family members at throwaway price causing loss to the B.D.A. and the public exchequer.

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed “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.  Normally the criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation the charge sheet has been filed.    At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducting the mini­trial.  As held by this Court the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are 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.”

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the instant appeal and quashed the impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court in view of the above.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that in the instant case, the allegations are an instance of abuse of the powers with a mala fide intention and allotment of the plots to the family members by hatching a criminal conspiracy and to allot the plots to the family members at throwaway price causing loss to the B.D.A. and the public exchequer. 
Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed “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.  Normally the criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation the charge sheet has been filed.    At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducting the mini­trial.  As held by this Court the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are 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.”

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the instant appeal and quashed the impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court in view of the above.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed “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.  Normally the criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation the charge sheet has been filed.    At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducting the mini­trial.  As held by this Court the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are 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.” 
Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the instant appeal and quashed the impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court in view of the above.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the instant appeal and quashed the impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court in view of the above.
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 and has quashed the criminal proceedings against the Shri Rajendra Kumar Samal the State of Odisha has of Police Vigilance Vigilance Cell Unit Office Bhubaneswar before the Superintendent of Police Vigilance Bhubaneswar Division Bhubaneswar alleging inter alia that on preliminary enquiry it was found that certain public servants occupying crucial positions in Bhubaneswar Development Authority surreptitiously distributed prime plots in Commercial Complex District Centre Chandrasekharpur Bhubaneswar. It was alleged that in pursuance of the the officials of the B.D.A. and of the H.&U.D. Deptt. Government of Odisha surreptitiously distributed prime Smt. Pratima Mohanty was serving as Steno to Vice­ Chairman B.D.A. Original accused No.5 ­ Shri Prakash Chandra Patra was serving as Jr. Assistant Allotment Section B.D.A and original accused No.3 ­ Shri Rajender ­ II B.D.A. and Personal Assistant to Minister Housing and plots for sale and their sale prices. It was alleged that B.D.A. who had access to such information as insiders distributed the prime plots among themselves or the B.D.A. was to the tune of Rs.30 27 849.80 and Rs.71 57 055.00. Therefore it was alleged that all the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988Shri Prakash Chandra Patra and Shri Rajendra Kumar had influenced any co­accused or any officer of B.D.A. or H.&U.D. Deptt. for getting the plots illegally in favour of their family members. It was also further observed that a pre­concert mind and they were in criminal conspiracy common judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the private offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC the 3.1 It is submitted that while quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents accused the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction vested under Section It is submitted that the High Court has not at all appreciated and considered the fact that at the stage of is submitted that no advertisement was issued by the The accused officers deliberately concealed the matter submitted that it was found that on the undated applications the plots were allotted to the relatives of the accused herein and public servants. It is submitted that therefore the First Information Report was filed by the sheet has been filed before the learned Special Judge prima facie case and being satisfied that a case for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC was made out the learned Special Judge Bhubaneswar has taken cognizance. It is submitted therefore the High Court ought not to have exercised the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and not ought to have 3.3 It is submitted that as such the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings by scrutinising the FIR material 3.4 It is further submitted that even otherwise while was of hatching a criminal conspiracy by the public allotment of the plots in the discretionary quota and that the allegations were for the offences under Section 120B mainly by observing that the respondents ­ accused have not dealt with the allotment file in any manner and that H.&U.D. Deptt. for getting the plots illegally in favour of their family members. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered established and misusing the powers in allotting the plots to the family members and that a huge loss has been caused to the that relatives of the respondents accused and other co­ accused public servants pursuant to a conspiracy submitted applications on plain papers and even some of the found that the allotment of the 10 plots were made arbitrarily and the respondents accused got the plots urged that the High Court has erred in quashing the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents original accused Nos. 4 5 and 3 has of the case and having found that the respondents ­ officer of B.D.A. or H.&U.D. Deptt. for getting the plots rightly quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents accused in exercise of its powers under has quashed the criminal proceedings and therefore the 5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective At the outset it is required to be noted that by the its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 13(2 order passed by the High Court it appears that the High which as such as observed and held by this Court in a Court in the case of State of Haryana And Ors. vs Ch Bhajan Lal And Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604 the powers under abuse of process of any court and or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the said decision this Court had the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of decisions relating to the exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration or otherwise to secure the ends of justice any precise clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power 1) Where the allegations made in the first report and other materials if any accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence the commission of any offence and make out a 4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non­cognizable 42 PART E offence no investigation is permitted by a police officer 5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for 7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to 6.1 Looking to the allegations in the present case against the respondents accused and considering the fact that charge­sheet has been filed by the Vigilance Cell after a para 102 in the case of Bhajan Lal 6 SCC 530 the Apex Court has held as plots houses petrol pumps gas agencies behalf of the people. He has to deal with the by the people In Onkar Lal Bajaj and Ors. v Union of India 2 SCC 673 the Apex Court has summarised the cardinal principles of 35. The expression "public interest" or "probity in governance interest" takes into its fold several fast rule to determine what is public interest. The circumstances in each case would determine whether www.manupatra.com Hon ble Mr Justice M.R. Shah was taken to and decision taken thereof should manifest equity fair play and justice not only has to base a transparency consideration of Government has to rise above the and eschew window­dressing. The act test of judiciousness and impartiality and avoid arbitrary or capricious actions. Therefore the principles of governance has to be tested on the touchstone of justice equity and fair justice equity and fair play and has though on the face of it the decision fact the reasons are not based on that decision cannot be allowed to this Court in the case of Common Cause A Registered Society that if a public servant abuses his office whether by his act of omission or commission and the consequence of that is injury to an individual or loss of can arrogate to himself powers in a manner which is “The concept of public accountability and performance of functions takes in its ambit Public duty and public obligation both are Services Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. 9 “The higher the public office held by a his part.” [See Charanjit Lamba Vs. Army “The holder of every public office holds a trust for public good and therefore his actions should all be above board.” [See Padma Vs which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest the country and therefore every act of the holder of a public office irrespective of the label era of transparency previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place Accountability and prevention of corruption is possible only through transparency.” [See ICAI Therefore action has to be initiated against the the allotment of the plots to the relatives and or family 9. While quashing the criminal proceedings the High genuineness of the evidence collected during the passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents herein ­ original accused Nos. 4 5 and 3 Smt. Pratima Mohanty Shri unsustainable both in law and or facts and the same Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3177 of 2017 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4804 of 2015 are hereby quashed and set aside in so far as quashing the properties. Allotment of public properties must be matters public interest only has to be the prime guiding 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 the persons in power and or the public servants who are dealing with the allotment of plots in the discretionary When a democratic government in exercise of its discretion selects the recipients for its largess then discretion should be exercised objectively rationally intelligibly fairly and in a non­arbitrary manner and it should not be subjective and according to the private opinion and or the whims and fancies of the persons in power and or the public servants. Even if guidelines are such discretionary quota and allotments of the public properties plots must be through public auction by and play and non­arbitrariness and should have objective 