High Courts can't examine availability of sufficient grounds for conviction under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that High Courts have a limited scope under Section 482 CrPC to examine “whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” based on the material, and not “whether that would warrant a conviction”.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra also said the validity of sanction for prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be examined during the trial.

The court also said the delay in the grant of sanction cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings.

The bench restored criminal proceedings in a disproportionate assets case against G Easwaran before a Chennai court. The respondent had joined government service as a surveyor in 1980 and was working as Assistant Director with Nagercoil Local Planning Authority at the relevant time.

The court's judgment came on March 26, 2025, on an appeal filed by Tamil Nadu's Vigilance and Anti-Corruption department against the Madras High Court's judgement of April 21, 2017. The High Court quashed the case, even though it had earlier declined a plea for revision against the refusal to discharge the respondent.

Having examined the matter, the bench said, "We are of the opinion that the reasoning adopted by the High Court for interdicting the criminal proceedings is contrary to the well-established principles laid down by this court."

In the case, the court noted the Special Court, while dismissing the discharge application, as well as the High Court while dismissing the revision petition previously, arrived at clear findings that there was a prima facie case, and this conclusion was drawn after examining the allegations as they stand.

"The impugned order (by the HC) operates against the established law that while the bar under section 397(3) of the CrPC does not curtail the remedy under Section 482, it is trite that inherent powers must be exercised sparingly," it said.

The court pointed out the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings was invoked after the dismissal of the discharge application and the consequent revision petition.

However, "The impugned order revisits the earlier decisions without any statable change in the facts and circumstances of the case, traverses to the extreme end of the spectrum," it said.

The High Court's order also concluded that the wife of the accused purchased the properties in the name of the daughter having power of attorney; that there was no satisfactory evidence of Benami; even if allowed to prosecute, the chances of conviction were bleak; or the probability of conviction is low; and the statements of witnesses do not warrant prosecution.

"It is clear that the High Court jumped to the probable conclusion of trial by not appreciating the limited scope of Section 482 CrPC. Instead of determining 'whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' based on the material, it asked the wrong question as to, 'whether that would warrant a conviction'," the bench said.

The court said that the High Court has exceeded the well-established principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

On the validity of the sanction granted to prosecute the respondent, the bench said the HC's order goes into the merits of the sanction and makes a finding regarding the sanction being invalid.

Holding that findings regarding the legality, validity, or delay in grant of sanction were premature, the bench said, "Validity of the sanction is an issue that must be examined during the course of the trial."

It was also pointed to the apex court that the conclusions drawn by the High Court about the impossibility of granting sanction on July 08, 2013, when the government received the request only on December 20, 2013, were not raised at any point of time -- neither in the discharge application before the Special Judge nor before the High Court in revision petition. It was also submitted that the argument was not even mentioned in the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC filed before the High Court.

The misconception about the dates arose because of a typographical mistake of mentioning the letter requesting sanction as December 20, 2013, instead of the correct date -- February 20, 2013.

"This is typically the problem that would arise when the High Court seeks to interdict proceedings and quash the criminal case before the relevant material to support the case of the prosecution is brought on record," the bench said.

The court held, thus, there is no doubt that the High Court committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the ground that the sanction to prosecute is illegal and invalid.

The court also said the validity of the sanction can always be examined during the course of the trial and the problems due to the typographical error, as alleged by the State, could have been explained by producing the file at the time of trial.

The bench also emphasised it is settled that a mere delay in the grant of sanction for prosecuting a public authority is not a ground to quash a criminal case.

In the case, the bench said, since the matter pertained to the check period 2001-2008, the trial court should conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.