Summary
The Court restored corruption and conspiracy proceedings against three development-authority employees accused of procuring plots for relatives at undervalued prices. The High Court had weighed disputed evidence and effectively conducted a trial while deciding quashing applications. Specific allegations and the investigation disclosed a prima facie case requiring trial, without establishing guilt. The Court also emphasised transparent, objective allocation of public property and urged doing away with discretionary quotas, generally favouring public auction while recognising properly administered class-based allotment policies.
Issues
- Whether disputed evidentiary assessments justified quashing the prosecution against three alleged participants in a plot-allotment conspiracy.
- What standards governed discretionary distribution of public property.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The inherent power did not permit detailed assessment of disputed evidence or a mini-trial where specific allegations and investigation disclosed a prima facie case. (¶¶ 6-7, 9-10)
Held
- Quashing powers are to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, exercised sparingly and cautiously. The illustrative Bhajan Lal categories remained applicable, but none justified termination of these proceedings on the material presented. Filing a charge sheet did not abolish the power, but detailed weighing of evidence at this stage was impermissible. (¶ 6-6.2)
- The allegations concerned officials directly or indirectly connected with allotment, applications on plain or undated papers for their relatives, and allotments allegedly causing substantial public loss. Whether the employees had handled files or influenced others in the alleged conspiracy required examination at trial. (¶ 6.3-7)
- The High Court exceeded the proper scope of quashing by deciding the reliability and genuineness of investigation material. Proceedings against the three respondents were restored so that they would face trial with the other accused; guilt was not adjudicated. (¶ 9-10)
- Public authorities hold public property for public benefit. Its allocation must follow transparent, objective and non-arbitrary procedures. The Court urged eliminating discretionary quotas and generally using public auctions, while requiring strict, fair implementation of policies benefiting specified disadvantaged classes. These observations accompanied restoration of the prosecution rather than an adjudication cancelling all discretionary allotments. (¶¶ 8-8.1, 11)
Result
State appeals allowed; quashing orders set aside insofar as they concerned original accused Nos. 4, 5 and 3, who were directed to face trial with the other accused.