New Delhi, Mar 3 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former IAS officer Pradeep N Sharma’s appeal seeking quashing of the FIR (first information report) but allowed anticipatory bail plea in a land allotment case, noting the serious allegations of ‘misuse of official position’ against him.
A bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale, observed that the allegations against Sharma were serious in nature such as criminal breach of trust and corruption in public office.
The Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s decision dismissing the former IAS officer’s plea to quash the FIR registered against him under Sections 409, 219, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
The FIR, filed by the Mamlatdar Office, alleged that Sharma, as District Collector, had wrongfully restored government land to private allottees despite their ineligibility.
The case pertains to an order allegedly favouring private allottees despite their prolonged absence from the country and the applicant’s transfer from the concerned jurisdiction.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat appeared for Sharma, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Maninder Singh represented the respondents.
The case revolved around a land allotment previously cancelled due to the allottees’ failure to cultivate the land as required. The complainant alleged that Sharma’s order aimed to unduly favour the allottees without verifying the authenticity of the power of attorney holder representing them.
Sharma had earlier approached the Gujarat High Court, arguing that the allegations were frivolous and motivated and that his decision was taken in a quasi-judicial capacity. However, in 2018, the High Court dismissed his petition, ruling that the allegations merited investigation.
The Supreme Court affirmed this position, stating that the FIR and supporting materials prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences, warranting a full investigation.
The Bench explained, “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 thorough investigation.”
The Court further noted that at the investigation stage, courts should refrain from preemptively quashing criminal proceedings unless there is evident abuse of process.
The Bench remarked, “Since the appellant’s contentions relate to factual disputes that need verification through proper investigatory mechanisms, it would be inappropriate for this Court to exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings at this stage.”
However, considering that the case primarily involves documentary evidence, the Court granted Sharma anticipatory bail.
“The nature of the allegations and the reliance on official records for investigation warrant the grant of
anticipatory bail,” the Court stated.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed Sharma’s appeal to quash the FIR, but allowed his appeal for anticipatory bail.
