Supreme Court overturns High Court’s quashing of criminal proceedings in Odisha land scam case (11 December 2021)

Arguments by the State of Odisha (Appellant)

• The State argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC by quashing the criminal proceedings.
• It was submitted that the High Court delved into the merits of the case, conducting a mini-trial, which is not permissible under Section 482 of the CrPC.
• The State contended that the High Court failed to appreciate that at the stage of considering an application under Section 482 CrPC, minute details of the case are not required to be examined.
• The State highlighted that the allotment of 10 plots was made arbitrarily, in connivance with each other, and the plots were allotted to relatives of the accused public servants.
• It was pointed out that no public advertisement was issued, concealing the matter from the general public and avoiding competition.
• The State emphasized that the plots were allotted on undated applications to the relatives of the accused at minimal rates.
• The State argued that the High Court should not have quashed the proceedings as there was a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy, favouritism, and misuse of power, causing a huge loss to the BDA and the public exchequer.
• The State asserted that the High Court erred in observing that the accused had not dealt with the allotment file and had not influenced others, as these aspects are to be considered and proved during the trial.

Arguments by the Accused Respondents

• The respondents argued that the High Court rightly quashed the criminal proceedings as they had no role in the fixation of the price of the plots.
• It was submitted that the respondents did not deal with the allotment files in any manner.
• The respondents contended that there was no material to show that they had influenced any co-accused or BDA/H.&U.D. Deptt. officials to get plots illegally for their family members.
• The respondents asserted that the High Court, after appreciating the material on record, rightly quashed the proceedings, and this should not be interfered with.

Summary of Arguments

Cases

• State of Haryana And Ors. vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 – This case was relied upon to define the scope and limitations of the High Court’s powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court in this case carved out exceptions to the general rule that criminal proceedings should not be quashed.
• Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 – This case was cited to emphasize that even in the matter of granting largesses, the government must act fairly and justly.
• Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 530 – This case was used to highlight that a Minister holds a trust on behalf of the people and must deal with public property fairly.
• Onkar Lal Bajaj and Ors. v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673 – This case was referred to for the cardinal principles of governance, emphasizing the need for transparency and probity.
• Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., (2011) 9 SCC 354 – This case was used to emphasize the concept of public accountability and the need for timely action in accordance with the law.
• Charanjit Lamba Vs. Army Southern Command, (2010) 11 SCC 314 – This case was cited to emphasize that the higher the public office, the greater the demand for rectitude.
• Padma Vs. Hiralal Motilal Desarda, (2002) 7 SCC 564 – This case was used to highlight that every holder of a public office holds a trust for public good.
• Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212 – This case was cited to emphasize that every holder of a public office is a trustee accountable to the people.
• ICAI Vs. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781 – This case was used to highlight that accountability and prevention of corruption is possible only through transparency.
• K. Raju vs. Bangalore Development Authority in Writ Petition No.11102 of 2008 – This case from the Karnataka High Court was referred to for similar situation with respect to the allotment of plots in discretionary quota.

Legal Provisions

• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – This section defines ‘criminal misconduct’ by a public servant.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.

Authority Analysis

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the authorities to support its reasoning for resolving the issue.

• State of Haryana And Ors. vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604*: The Court followed this authority to reiterate the limitations of the High Court’s powers under Section 482 CrPC. It emphasized that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial while exercising its inherent powers.
• Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628*: The Court cited this case to underscore that the government must act fairly and justly in granting largesses.
• Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 530*: This authority was used to emphasize that a Minister holds a trust on behalf of the people and must deal with public property fairly.
• Onkar Lal Bajaj and Ors. v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673*: The Court relied on this case to highlight the cardinal principles of governance, emphasizing transparency and probity.
• Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., (2011) 9 SCC 354*: This case was used to emphasize the concept of public accountability.
• Charanjit Lamba Vs. Army Southern Command, (2010) 11 SCC 314*: This authority was cited to emphasize that the higher the public office, the greater the demand for rectitude.
• Padma Vs. Hiralal Motilal Desarda, (2002) 7 SCC 564*: The Court relied on this case to highlight that every holder of a public office holds a trust for public good.
• Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) Vs. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212*: This authority was cited to emphasize that every holder of a public office is a trustee accountable to the people.
• ICAI Vs. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781*: This case was used to highlight that accountability and prevention of corruption is possible only through transparency.
• K. Raju vs. Bangalore Development Authority in Writ Petition No.11102 of 2008*: This case from the Karnataka High Court was followed for similar situation with respect to the allotment of plots in discretionary quota.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the rule of law and ensure that serious allegations of corruption are thoroughly investigated. The court emphasized the following points:

• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC by conducting a mini-trial and delving into the merits of the case.
• The allegations against the accused were serious, involving corruption, criminal conspiracy, and misuse of power, which warranted a full trial.
• The Court highlighted the need for transparency and accountability in the allotment of public properties.
• The Court emphasized that public servants must act in a fair and non-arbitrary manner, and any abuse of power must be investigated.
• The Court also noted that discretionary quotas often lead to corruption, nepotism, and favouritism.

Logical Reasoning