Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal seeking the quashing of an FIR against a retired District Collector accused of misusing his position in a government land allotment case. The Court found that the allegations disclosed cognizable offenses and required further examination. In a separate appeal, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, noting that custodial interrogation was not necessary given the nature of the case.

The case arises from FIR No. 33 of 2011, registered on May 12, 2011, at Tankara Police Station, Rajkot (Rural), Gujarat. The appellant, Pradip N. Sharma, a former District Collector of Rajkot, was accused of offenses under Sections 409, 219, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to the complainant, the Mamlatdar of Tankara, government land measuring 65 acres in Village Anandpara was originally allotted in 1970 to private individuals for personal cultivation. Since the allottees were neither residing in the village nor cultivating the land, the Deputy Collector, Morbi, forfeited the land in favor of the government in 2000.

In 2007, the legal heirs of the original allottees filed an appeal before the then Collector, Rajkot. On March 27, 2008, the appellant set aside the Deputy Collector’s order and restored the land to the allottees. This decision was later reversed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Appeals), Ahmedabad, who directed that the government retain possession of the land.

The FIR alleged that the appellant acted in violation of the government’s interests by allowing the restoration of land to individuals who were not eligible to reclaim it. It was further stated that the order was passed without verifying the authenticity of the power of attorney holder representing the legal heirs.

The appellant approached the Gujarat High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking quashing of the FIR. He submitted that the allegations were baseless and politically motivated. The High Court dismissed this petition on December 12, 2018. The appellant then sought anticipatory bail, which was also rejected by the High Court on February 28, 2019.

Two appeals were subsequently filed before the Supreme Court—one challenging the High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR and another challenging the denial of anticipatory bail.

The appellant contended that:

• The land allotment decision was made in his official capacity as the District Collector and was purely administrative in nature.

• The appeal before him had been filed after a delay of seven years, but it was entertained on procedural grounds.

• The FIR was lodged four years after the decision, raising questions about its intent.

• He had already retired and was facing multiple FIRs, which he claimed were being lodged to harass him.

• The acts alleged in the FIR did not constitute a criminal offense, as they arose from decisions taken in the course of his official duties.

The State of Gujarat submitted that:

• The appellant misused his authority to favor private individuals despite clear evidence that the allottees were ineligible for land restoration.

• He entertained an appeal despite an unexplained seven-year delay and issued the order restoring the land after he had already been transferred from Rajkot to Bhavnagar.

• The case involved criminal breach of trust, as the appellant facilitated the transfer of government land to private individuals.

• Multiple allegations of land misappropriation had been made against the appellant in different cases.

The Supreme Court considered the plea for quashing the FIR and examined whether the allegations disclosed cognizable offenses. The judgment stated:

"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 Court took note of the fact that the appellant had passed the order despite having been transferred. The judgment observed:

"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."

Regarding the scope of quashing an FIR, the Court stated:

"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."

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal seeking to quash the FIR.

The Supreme Court then examined the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail. It took into account the nature of the allegations and the evidence available. The judgment noted:

"The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation."

The Court observed that:

• The allegations primarily involved documentary evidence, and custodial interrogation was not necessary.

• The prosecution had not demonstrated that the appellant posed a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

• The appellant had cooperated with the investigation.

The Court stated:

"Given 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 anticipatory bail was granted with conditions. The judgment stated:

"The appellant upon arrest may be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the present case, subject to the following conditions:

1. The appellant will extend all cooperation during the investigation; and
2. If the Investigating Agency requires custodial investigation, it may apply to the concerned Magistrate for appropriate orders, and the said application will be considered/decided on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by us."

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal seeking to quash the FIR, holding that the allegations warranted further examination. However, it granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, taking into account the documentary nature of the evidence and the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation.

Case Title: Pradip N. Sharma vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 291

Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 354 of 2019 & SLP (Crl.) No. 2812 of 2019

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale