The Supreme Court on Friday declined to quash the First Information Report (FIR) against ex-IAS officer Pradip N Sharma in connection with a 2011 land allotment controversy. However, the apex court granted him anticipatory bail, observing that the investigation primarily revolves around documentary evidence.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the power to quash an FIR is to be exercised only in rare cases where it is evidently clear that no offense has been committed. “The plea for quashing the FIR and subsequent legal proceedings is denied, as the allegations involve serious misuse of official position, criminal breach of trust, and alleged corrupt activities while performing public duties,” the bench stated.
Background of the Case
Sharma, a former Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, has been accused of criminal breach of trust by a public servant and making a fraudulent claim in court. The FIR was filed by the then mamlatdar (a government official overseeing revenue administration) of Tankara village in Gujarat’s Rajkot district.
Nominations are open for Honouring Women in Cyberspace on International Women’s Day 2025- Nominate Now!
The dispute concerns a parcel of land in Anandpara, which was originally allotted to D.J. Mehta and others. The state government later confiscated the land, citing that the owners were not residing in the village or personally cultivating it. Mehta and his associates appealed the decision in 2006-07 before Sharma, who was serving as the district collector at the time.
Sharma subsequently issued an ex-parte order restoring the land to Mehta. However, this decision was later overturned in a revision process by the principal secretary, revenue (appeals), in Ahmedabad, ruling in favor of the state government. Mehta then challenged this ruling in the high court, which upheld Sharma’s initial decision.
Allegations Against Sharma
According to the complainant, Sharma knowingly overturned the deputy collector’s order, reinstating the land in favor of individuals who were residing abroad. It is alleged that he failed to verify the authenticity of the power-of-attorney holder and acted beyond his jurisdiction at the time of passing the order.
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, along with advocate Ajay Desai, represented Sharma in the case, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued on behalf of the Gujarat government.
Supreme Court’s Observations
In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the allegations against Sharma pertain to his issuing a favorable order to private allottees despite their prolonged absence from the country and his own transfer from the concerned jurisdiction. The court highlighted the state’s contentions regarding Sharma’s alleged lack of authority in the matter, possible collusion, and failure to recognize the legal status of the land, indicating the necessity of a thorough investigation.
Empanelment for Speakers, Trainers, and Cyber Security Experts Opens at Future Crime Research Foundation
“The jurisdiction to quash an FIR is restricted and should be exercised only in exceptional situations where it is unquestionably evident that no crime has been committed. In this case, the FIR and supporting evidence presented by the prosecution suggest the commission of cognizable offenses, necessitating a comprehensive probe,” the bench stated.
The court emphasized that the allegations cannot be resolved solely through legal arguments and require scrutiny of official documents and procedural adherence. It further remarked that courts should avoid prematurely halting criminal proceedings at the investigation stage unless there is a clear abuse of legal processes.
Anticipatory Bail Granted with Conditions
While denying the plea to quash the FIR, the court granted Sharma anticipatory bail, considering that the case primarily involves documentary evidence. The bench directed that upon arrest, he should be released on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh, subject to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.
Additionally, the court mandated Sharma to fully cooperate with the investigation. If authorities find custodial interrogation necessary, they have the option to seek appropriate orders from the magistrate.