2025 (4) TMI 102 - SC - Indian Laws

HC wrongly quashed disproportionate assets case under Section 482 CrPC without material change in circumstances

STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION CHENNAI CITY-I DEPARTMENT Versus G. EASWARAN

The SC allowed the appeal and restored the case to the trial court. The HC erroneously quashed criminal proceedings for disproportionate assets under ... Quashing of criminal proceedings for possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income - use of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. - Validity of the sanction granted to prosecute the respondent. Use of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings was invoked after the dismissal of the discharge application and the consequent revision petition. In State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath, [2019 (5) TMI 1986 - SUPREME COURT] this Court examined a similar situation where the High Court entertained a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed against the dismissal of a discharge petition. Setting aside the judgement of the High Court, this Court held 'The High Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that in the absence of a certificate Under Section 65B when the charge sheet was submitted, the prosecution was liable to fail and that the proceeding was required to be quashed at that stage. The High Court has evidently lost sight of the other material on which the prosecution sought to place reliance.' It is not disputed that in the instant case, the Special Court, as well as the High Court, while dismissing the petition for discharge, examined the allegations and arrived at clear findings that there was a prima facie case against the respondent. The impugned order revisits the earlier decisions without any statable change in the facts and circumstances of the case, traverses to the extreme end of the spectrum, and concludes that: i) the wife of the accused purchased the properties in the name of the daughter having power of attorney; ii) that there was no satisfactory evidence of Benami; iii) even if allowed to prosecute, the chances of conviction were bleak; or iv) the probability of conviction is low; and v) the statements of witnesses do not warrant prosecution. Validity of the sanction granted to prosecute the respondent - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the High Court committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the ground that the sanction to prosecute is illegal and invalid. In conclusion, it is found that the objections raised in the revision petition against the Special Court’s order dismissing the discharge application were identical to the grounds raised in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., from which the present appeal arises. Second, apart from being congruent and overlapping, the respondent could not demonstrate any material change in facts and circumstances between the dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court and the filing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Third, the validity of the sanction can always be examined during the course of the trial and the problems due to the typographical error as alleged by the State could have been explained by producing the file at the time of trial. Fourth, it is settled that a mere delay in the grant of sanction for prosecuting a public authority is not a ground to quash a criminal case. The reasoning adopted by the High Court for interdicting the criminal proceedings is contrary to the well-established principles laid down by this Court. Conclusion - i) The High Court erred in quashing the proceedings, as it did not adhere to the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. ii) The validity of the sanction should be assessed in the trial court, during the trial, not in pre-trial proceedings. The case restored to Trial Court - Appeal allowed. The legal judgment addresses the appeal against the High Court of Madras's decision to quash criminal proceedings against a respondent accused of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court examines the issues surrounding the use of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the validity of the sanction for prosecution.1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core issues considered in this judgment include:Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings after a discharge application and subsequent revision petition were dismissed.The validity and timeliness of the sanction granted for prosecuting the respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Exercise of Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Relevant legal framework and precedents: The judgment references several precedents, including Krishnan v. Krishnaveni and Renu Kumari v. Sanjay Kumar, which emphasize that inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that both the Special Court and the High Court had found a prima facie case against the respondent. The High Court's decision to quash the proceedings was seen as exceeding the well-established principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482.Application of law to facts: The Court highlighted that the High Court's decision revisited earlier findings without any significant change in facts or circumstances, which was inappropriate.Conclusions: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings, as it did not adhere to the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482.Issue 2: Validity of the Sanction for ProsecutionRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referenced decisions such as Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India, and Director, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aswal, which state that the validity of a sanction should be examined during the trial.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the High Court's findings on the invalidity of the sanction were premature. The alleged typographical error regarding the date of the sanction request could have been clarified during the trial.Application of law to facts: The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's decision to quash the prosecution based on the sanction's validity was erroneous, as such issues should be addressed during the trial.Conclusions: The Court determined that the High Court's reasoning was flawed, and the validity of the sanction should be assessed in the trial court.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It also emphasizes that issues regarding the validity of a sanction should be resolved during the trial, not in pre-trial proceedings.Final determinations on each issue: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the case to the trial court, and directed the trial to proceed expeditiously. The Court reiterated that the trial court should assess the validity of the sanction during the trial process.The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Chennai, for continuation of the trial from the point it was interrupted. The Supreme Court urged the trial court to conclude the trial as quickly as possible, given the time elapsed since the alleged offenses.