2021 (4) TMI 1243 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes FIR against public servant for lack of evidence, emphasizes rectifying errors through proper channels

P. Sunil Kumar Versus State of Kerala and Ors.

The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, the second accused, as it found no evidence of dishonest intention or extraneous considerations in his ... Criminal Misconduct - public servant, acting as quasi judicial authority under a statute - allegation against the petitioner is that he passed Annexure-VI order without verifying the back records and without ascertaining the factual position and therefore, he committed criminal misconduct - initiation of criminal proceedings against such quasi judicial adjudication - HELD THAT:- There can be no dispute with regard to the fact that the proceeding under Section 12 of the Act is a quasi judicial proceeding. In fact, it is specifically mentioned in this provision that, for the purpose of Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code, the proceedings taken under this provision shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings - An aggrieved party can file appeal as provided under Section 16(1) against an order passed under Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. Revision against such order is also provided under Section 16(2) of the Act, which states that the Collector may either suo motu or on application revise any decision made or order passed under the Act by an authorised officer. If a public servant, acting as a quasi judicial authority under a statute passes an order and if such order is in favour of a person other than the Government, any pecuniary advantage obtained by such person by virtue of such order, cannot be the basis for prosecution of the public servant under the PC Act, unless there is an allegation that he was actuated by extraneous considerations or oblique motives in passing the order - to fall within the four corners of sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the P.C. Act, the decision/conduct of the public servant must be dishonest amounting to corruption. Mens rea, the intention and/or knowledge of wrong doing, is an essential condition of the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the P.C. Act. The presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act does not apply to the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of that Act. The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. The right of the police to conduct investigation is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation. The Annexure-I F.I.R., as against the petitioner, is liable to be quashed by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code - petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the FIR against the petitioner.2. Allegations of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act.3. Allegations of forgery and use of forged documents under the Indian Penal Code.4. The role and liability of a quasi-judicial authority.5. The scope of judicial review in quashing FIRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the FIR against the petitioner:The petitioner, the second accused, sought to quash the FIR registered under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 465, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was based on allegations that the petitioner, in his capacity as Tahsildar, passed an order favoring M/s. Joys Group without proper verification, thereby causing loss to the government. However, the court found that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioner, as there was no evidence of dishonest intention or extraneous considerations.2. Allegations of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act:The court examined whether the petitioner’s actions constituted criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the P.C. Act. It was noted that the petitioner acted as a quasi-judicial authority and passed an order after conducting a hearing and site inspection. The court emphasized that mere errors or incorrect decisions by a quasi-judicial authority do not amount to criminal misconduct unless there is evidence of corruption or extraneous motives. The court concluded that there was no material to suggest that the petitioner acted with dishonest intention or for personal gain.3. Allegations of forgery and use of forged documents under the Indian Penal Code:The FIR also included charges under Sections 465 and 471 of the IPC, which pertain to forgery and the use of forged documents. The court found no allegations or evidence in the FIR that the petitioner manipulated or forged any records. The corrections made by the petitioner in his order were minor and did not alter the substance of the original order. Therefore, the court held that the charges of forgery and use of forged documents were not applicable to the petitioner.4. The role and liability of a quasi-judicial authority:The court discussed the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and the protection afforded to public servants acting in such capacities. It reiterated that a quasi-judicial authority must act independently and fearlessly, and errors in their decisions should be corrected through appellate or revisional forums, not through criminal prosecution. The court stressed that criminal proceedings against quasi-judicial authorities should only be initiated if there is clear evidence of misconduct or extraneous influences.5. The scope of judicial review in quashing FIRs:The court applied the principles established in previous judgments, such as State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, to assess whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence. It concluded that the FIR did not disclose any offence against the petitioner and that the investigation had not unearthed any material evidence against him. Consequently, the court invoked its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR against the petitioner.Conclusion:The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner, emphasizing that errors or incorrect decisions by a quasi-judicial authority do not constitute criminal misconduct unless there is evidence of corruption or extraneous motives. The court also highlighted the importance of protecting quasi-judicial authorities from unwarranted criminal prosecution to ensure they can discharge their duties independently and without fear.