Supreme Court refuses to quash FIR against former IAS officer Pradip Sharma in 2011 land-allotment case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to quash an FIR against former IAS officer Pradip N Sharma in connection with a case registered against him over a land-allotment dispute in 2011.

The top court, however, granted anticipatory bail to Sharma, noting that the matter is to be investigated primarily on the basis of documentary evidence.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the scope of allowing a prayer for quashing an FIR is limited and the power is to be exercised only in exceptional cases, where it is manifestly clear that no offence is made out.

"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 bench said.

According to the case, the former Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer was charged with criminal breach of trust by a public servant and dishonestly making false claim in a court in the FIR registered against him by the then mamlatdar (a government officer who manages revenue administration) of Tankara village in Gujarat's Rajkot.

According to the FIR, a land parcel allotted to a certain D J Mehta and others in Anandpara was confiscated by the state government as they were not staying in the village and cultivating the land personally.

The land owners moved a land appeal case in 2006-07 before Sharma, who was the collector of the region then.

Sharma allotted the land back to Mehta through an ex-parte order, which was taken into revision by the principal secretary, revenue (appeals), Ahmedabad, who ruled in the government's favour. This was challenged by Mehta before the high court, which upheld the order passed by Sharma.

According to the complainant, Sharma, who was the Rajkot district collector at the relevant time, had, despite knowing that the said allottees were staying abroad, set aside the order passed by the deputy collector with a view to unduly favour them and that too without verifying the genuineness of the power-of-attorney holder.

Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, along with advocate Ajay Desai, appeared in the court on behalf of Sharma, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Gujarat government.

In its judgment, the top court said the case against Sharma pertains to his passing an order that allegedly favoured private allottees, despite their long absence from the country and his own transfer from the jurisdiction concerned.

"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 offence is made out. However, in the present case, the FIR and the materials relied upon by the prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of cognisable offences, warranting a full-fledged investigation," the bench said.

It said the allegations against Sharma cannot be adjudicated merely on the basis of the pleadings and require a scrutiny of official records and procedural compliance.

"At the stage of investigation, courts should refrain from preemptively quashing criminal proceedings unless there is an evident abuse of process.

"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," the bench said.

It said upon arrest, Sharma may be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh to the satisfaction of the investigating officer of the case.

It directed Sharma to cooperate during the investigation and said if the investigating agency requires custodial investigation, it may apply to the magistrate concerned for appropriate orders.