The
Supreme Court today refused to quash the FIR against former Gujarat IAS officer
Pradeep Sharma, accused of misusing his official position to pass favourable
orders in a land dispute. However, the Court granted him anticipatory bail.
A bench
comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale heard Sharma’s appeal
challenging Gujarat High Court’s orders dated December 12, 2018, and February
28, 2019, which had rejected his plea to quash the 2011 FIR filed in
Rajkot. The FIR accuses Sharma of committing offenses under Sections 409,
219, and 114 of the IPC and had also denied him anticipatory bail.
Allegations Against Pradeep Sharma
According
to the FIR, Sharma, while serving as a Collector, overturned a forfeiture order
and restored land to its original allottees, despite knowing they were residing
abroad and not cultivating the land. The state contended that this action was
beyond his jurisdiction and indicated malafide intent, constituting criminal
breach of trust (Section 409 IPC), misuse of official position (Section
219 IPC), and abetment (Section 114 IPC).
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court
ruled that the allegations against Sharma were serious and required a thorough
investigation. It stated:
“The
prayer for quashing the FIR is refused as the allegations involve misuse of
official position, criminal breach of trust, and alleged corrupt practices in
public duty. The order passed by the applicant allegedly favoured private
allottees despite their prolonged absence from the country and his own transfer
from the concerned jurisdiction.”
The Court
further noted that allowing a plea for quashing an FIR is an exceptional
measure, only applicable when it is evident that no offense is made out. Since
the case involves factual disputes and procedural compliance scrutiny,
preemptive quashing was deemed inappropriate.
Anticipatory Bail Granted
Despite
rejecting Sharma’s plea to quash the FIR, the Court granted him anticipatory
bail, noting that the case primarily involves documentary evidence rather
than physical criminal acts. Key factors influencing this decision included:
- The case revolves around administrative
discretion rather than direct criminal conduct.
- No evidence suggests Sharma
would tamper with evidence or evade investigation.
- Custodial interrogation was
deemed unnecessary, as the case relies on official records.
The Court
ruled that Sharma would not be taken into custody but must comply with the
following conditions:
- He shall be released upon
arrest on
furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.
- He must fully cooperate with the investigation.
- If custodial interrogation
is deemed necessary, the Investigating Agency may approach the
Magistrate, who will decide based on merits.
The Court
also acknowledged that this FIR is part of a series of similar allegations
against Sharma but emphasized that in the absence of evidence suggesting
witness tampering or obstruction of justice, anticipatory bail was justified.
Representation
- Senior Advocate Devadatt
Kamat
appeared for the petitioner.
- Solicitor General of India
Tushar Mehta
represented the State.
Case
Reference: Pradeep
N Sharma v. State of Gujarat and Another | SLP (CRL) 354/2019
