PRADIP N. SHARMAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

          [2025] 2 S.C.R. 2091 : 2025 INSC 291

                     Pradip N. Sharma
                             v.
                   State of Gujarat & Anr.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 1001 of 2025)
                       28 February 2025
      [Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
The High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application
of appellant praying for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss.409,
219 and 114 of IPC and also rejected the appellant’s prayer for
anticipatory bail.

                           Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.409, 219, 114 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – A government land was allotted to one D
and others for by way of Santhani for personal cultivation –
Since the allottees were not staying in the village and were
not cultivating the land personally, the then Deputy Collector
registered a case and forfeited the land in favour of the
Government – However, in appeal, the appellant, as the
Collector, set aside the said order of the Deputy Collector
and directed to restore the land – In revision, the Principal
Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) set aside the order of the
appellant – The complainant-Mamlatdar of village lodged
the FIR against the appellant for offences u/ss.409, 219 and
114, IPC – A Criminal Misc. Application of appellant praying
for quashing of FIR was dismissed by the High Court and
appellant’s prayer for anticipatory bail was also rejected –
Correctness:
Held: The prayer seeking quashing of the FIR and the criminal
proceedings is refused, as the allegations against the applicant
involve serious allegations of misuse of official position, criminal
breach of trust, and alleged corrupt practices in the discharge
of public duties – The case against the applicant pertains to his
passing an order that allegedly favoured private allottees despite
their long absence from the country and despite his own transfer
from the concerned jurisdiction – The scope of allowing a prayer
2092                                                          [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    for quashing is limited and is to be exercised only in exceptional
    cases where it is manifestly clear that no offense is made out –
    However, in the present case, the FIR and the materials relied
    upon by the prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of
    cognizable offences, warranting a full-fledged investigation – At
    the stage of investigation, Courts should refrain from preemptively
    quashing criminal proceedings unless there is an evident abuse of
    process – Since the appellant’s contentions relate to factual disputes
    that need verification through proper investigatory mechanisms, it
    would be inappropriate for this Court to exercise its inherent powers
    to quash the proceedings at this stage – Considering the nature
    of the allegations and the fact that the matter is to be investigated
    primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court is inclined to
    grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the appellant – Additionally,
    the appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the
    investigation, and no material has been placed before this Court
    to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the investigation in
    any manner – Furthermore, it is well-settled that anticipatory bail
    can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential,
    particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records
    and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre-trial
    detention – Thus, there is no merit in appeal warranting interference
    with the impugned order passed by the High Court declining
    to quash the FIR – However, appellant may be released upon
    furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of
    the Investigating Officer. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 20]

                                List of Acts
    Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                             List of Keywords
    Government land; Forfeiture of land; Section 409 of Penal Code,
    1860; Section 219 of Penal Code, 1860; Section 114 of Penal
    Code, 1860; Quashing of FIR; Anticipatory bail; Misuse of official
    position; Criminal breach of trust; Corrupt practices in the discharge
    of public duties.

                            Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    1001 of 2025
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        2093

                       Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Anr.


       From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2018 of the High Court
       of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRLMA No. 7960 of 2011
       With
       Criminal Appeal No. 1002 of 2025

                                Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellants:
       Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Aljo K. Joseph, Anurag Kumar,
       Ms. Meenakshi, Vinay Kumar Puvvala, Saket Jee, Divyesh Pratap
       Singh.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mitesh Amin, A.A.G., Maninder
       Singh, Sr. Adv., Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Kanu Agrawal,
       Vivek Gurnani, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Aakriti Mishra,
       Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Kanu Agarwal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Ms. Neha
       Singh, Madhav Sinhal

                        Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                       Judgment

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present appeals have been preferred by the appellant – accused
       in First Information Report1 being I-C.R. No. 33 of 2011 registered
       on 12.05.2011 with Tankara Police Station, Rajkot (Rural), Gujarat
       for offences under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of the Indian Penal
       Code, 18602.
3.     Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 354 of 2019 has been preferred
       against the judgment dated 12.12.2018 passed by the High Court of
       Gujarat in R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 7960 of 2011, dismissing
       the appellant’s prayer for quashing of the above-mentioned FIR.
4.     Appeal arising from SLP(Crl) No. 2812 of 2019 challenges the order
       of the High Court dated 28.02.2019 in R/Criminal Misc. Application
       No. 2367 of 2019, whereby the High Court rejected the appellant’s
       prayer for anticipatory bail in the abovementioned case.


1    In short “FIR”
2    In short, “IPC”
2094                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


5.    The facts giving rise to both the above proceedings are that an FIR
      being I-C.R. No. 33 of 2011 was registered against the appellant
      for offences under Sections 409, 219 and 114, IPC at the instance
      of respondent no.2 in the appeal arising from SLP(Crl) No. 354 of
      2019. The complainant was the Mamlatdar of village Tankara at
      the relevant time and had lodged the FIR on behalf of the State on
      12.05.2011, alleging that the government land bearing survey no.2
      admeasuring 65 acres, situated at Village Anandpara was allotted
      to one D.J. Mehta and others on 19.05.1970 by way of Santhani for
      personal cultivation as per the entry made in village Form No. VI.
      Since the said allottees were not staying in the village and were
      not cultivating the land personally, the then Deputy Collector, Morbi
      registering the case as Sharatbhang No.40/2000, forfeited the land
      in favour of the Government vide order dated 15.11.2000. The said
      allottees in the year 2007, therefore filed an appeal before the then
      Collector, Rajkot (i.e. the present appellant). In the said appeal, the
      appellant, as the Collector, set aside the said order of the Deputy
      Collector and directed to restore the land in the name of the said
      allottees vide order dated 27.03.2008. The said order passed by the
      appellant was taken into revision by the Principal Secretary, Revenue
      (Appeals), Ahmedabad, who set aside the order of the appellant and
      directed to enter the name of the Government in the revenue records.
      According to the complainant, the appellant, who was the District
      Collector, Rajkot at the relevant time, had, knowing fully well that
      the said allottees were staying abroad and not cultivating the land
      as per the order of allotment, and therefore were not eligible to get
      back the land, set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector,
      with a view to unduly favour them and that too without verifying
      the genuineness of the power of attorney holder, who had filed the
      appeal before the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) on behalf
      of the legal heirs of the deceased allottees, Mr. Mehta and others.
      Thus, the appellant acting against the interest of the Government
      and with a view to unduly favour the allottees, had passed the order
      with malicious intention, and thereby had committed the offences
      under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of the IPC.
6.    Appellant preferred an application (R/Criminal Misc. Application
      No. 7960 of 2011) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
      Procedure, 19733, seeking quashing of the FIR on the grounds that


3    In short, “CrPC”
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                         2095

               Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Anr.


     the allegations were baseless and did not disclose any cognizable
     offense, and further that the complaint was malicious and was filed
     only because the appellant’s brother was at odds with the political
     leaders of the area. It was further urged that the police department
     had been insistent upon harassing the appellant by registering multiple
     cases against him. It was argued that the FIR was lodged by the
     Mamlatdar, acting on behalf of the State, without proper examination
     of the factual matrix, including the allotment of government land and
     its subsequent use by the allottees. The appellant contended that
     the alleged acts of omission or commission were done in discharge
     of his duties in the quasi-judicial proceedings and did not amount
     to criminal misconduct or breach of trust as contemplated under the
     penal provisions invoked.
7.   The High Court, after perusing the FIR and the supporting materials,
     observed that the allegations pertained to a serious matter involving
     government land and its misuse, which prima facie disclosed
     commission of cognizable offences under the IPC. The High Court
     noted that the disputed facts, such as the cultivation of the land
     by the original allottees and the subsequent alleged violations,
     required thorough investigation and could not be adjudicated at the
     preliminary stage. It was held that quashing the FIR at the nascent
     stage would amount to preemptively stifling a legitimate investigation
     into potential abuse of public resources. It was further observed that
     from a bare reading of the order passed by the appellant, it appears
     that an appeal was entertained even though it was filed with a delay
     of seven years, the order was passed with all the material against
     the allottees on record, and without verifying the bonafides of the
     power of attorney holder. The application seeking quashing of the
     FIR was thus dismissed on 12.12.2018.
8.   Subsequently, the appellant approached the High Court again
     through R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 2367 of 2019, seeking
     anticipatory bail in connection with the present FIR. The appellant
     sought anticipatory bail primarily on the grounds that the registration of
     multiple cases against him is a result of malafide intent and an abuse
     of the legal process by the State authorities. It was contended that
     many of the alleged incidents took place before 2009, and despite
     securing bail in some cases and obtaining stays on investigation in
     others, fresh complaints are being lodged against him each time
     he is released on bail. He argued that this indicates a pattern of
2096                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports



     targeted harassment. Furthermore, he had retired from service by
     then, and therefore, there was no reasonable apprehension that
     he would engage in similar offences if granted anticipatory bail.
     Additionally, he asserted that the prosecution’s case is primarily
     based on documentary evidence, and given his past cooperation
     with the investigating agency, custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
9.   The High Court in its order dated 28.02.2019 refused to grant
     anticipatory bail to the appellant. It observed that serious allegations
     had been made against the appellant regarding his misuse of powers
     under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 by condoning a
     seven-year delay in filing an appeal and passing orders in favor of
     certain allottees, despite the land having been taken over by the
     government. Notably, the appellant had already been transferred
     from Rajkot to Bhavnagar at the time he issued the impugned order,
     which the High Court found questionable. The High Court also noted
     that the allottees in question were not cultivating the land and were
     residing abroad, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the transactions.
     Moreover, the appellant faced similar allegations in another case
     involving the allotment of government land, reinforcing the perception
     of misconduct. The High Court also considered the rejection of the
     appellant’s earlier quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and
     noted that, despite the appellant having filed an SLP before this Court,
     no interim relief had been granted in his favor. Given the prima facie
     case against the appellant, the number of cases registered against
     him, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, the Court concluded
     that discretionary relief under Section 438 CrPC was unwarranted.
10. The appellant has challenged both these orders in the two appeals
    before us.
11. We have heard shri Devadatt Kamat, learned senior counsels for the
    appellant and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing
    for the respondents at length.
12. The grounds taken before us in both these appeals are identical to
    those raised by the appellant before the High Court. Learned senior
    counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, a retired IAS
    officer, had passed the impugned order in his official capacity as the
    then District Collector, in due exercise of his quasi-judicial functions.
    It was contended that the FIR No. 33/2011, registered under Sections
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                       2097

               Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Anr.



     114, 219, and 409 of the IPC, is frivolous and motivated, having been
     lodged after an unexplained delay of four years. The appellant was
     neither entrusted with the property in question nor had dominion
     over it, and his decision was in accordance with the powers vested
     in him under the law. The High Court, while rejecting the appellant’s
     petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR, failed
     to appreciate these aspects. It was further submitted that the High
     Court, in Special Civil Application No. 14966/2012, had previously
     upheld the appellant’s order dated 27.03.2008, thereby reaffirming the
     legality of his actions. The appellant contended that the allegations
     of bias or malice in the exercise of his official duties are unfounded,
     particularly since his decision merely restored an opportunity of
     hearing to the affected parties. The appellant emphasized that passing
     an erroneous order, if at all, does not constitute a criminal offense,
     as otherwise, every public officer would be at risk of prosecution for
     performing official functions.
13. Regarding the denial of anticipatory bail, it has been argued that even
    if the allegations in the FIR are assumed to be true, no offence under
    Section 409 IPC is made out, as the appellant merely adjudicated
    an appeal in his official capacity. The allegations under Section
    219 IPC were also unfounded, as the appellant had exercised his
    judicial discretion in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
    It was submitted that the appellant had an unblemished record of
    over 30 years in the civil services and was instrumental in the post-
    earthquake rehabilitation of Bhuj-Kutch. However, after 2010, multiple
    FIRs were registered against him, allegedly as a consequence of
    administrative decisions that did not align with the interests of the
    State Government.
14. The submissions made on behalf of the State of Gujarat, in both these
    cases, before the High Court as well as this Court are the same. It
    has been submitted on behalf of the State that the appellant, as a
    public servant, misused his position by condoning an unjustified delay
    of seven years in preferring the appeal and passing an order that
    unduly favored the allottees, despite their absence from India for over
    two decades. The order in question was passed on 27.03.2008, even
    though the appellant had already been transferred to Bhavnagar on
    24.03.2008, raising concerns regarding its legitimacy. It was further
    contended that the appellant misappropriated government land in
    favor of private individuals, thereby committing criminal breach of
2098                                                         [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     trust under Section 405 of the IPC. Additionally, it was pointed out
     that two of the allottees were deceased, and their power of attorney
     holder had filed false verifications on their behalf, which the appellant
     ignored while passing the order.
15. It has been argued that the order dated 27.03.2008 was passed
    despite the appellant’s transfer on 24.03.2008. The Deputy Collector
    had earlier canceled the allotment of the land after finding that the
    allottees were not cultivating the land and were residing abroad.
    The said cancellation order was challenged after seven years, and
    while setting it aside on the ground of violation of natural justice,
    the appellant also directed the authorities to mutate the allottees’
    names in the revenue records and hand over possession of the
    land, despite the government already having taken possession of it.
    Reference was made to an order dated 02.09.2013 passed by the
    High Court, which had set aside a subsequent decision of the Special
    Secretary (Revenue Department) and remanded the matter to the
    Deputy Collector for reconsideration. It was contended that, despite
    setting aside the Deputy Collector’s order for violating natural justice,
    the appellant failed to remand the matter back for fresh adjudication
    and instead directly issued directions for handing over possession,
    thereby exceeding his jurisdiction.
16. It was further pointed out that the High Court had initially granted
    a stay on the investigation against the appellant within 20 days of
    the FIR being registered. However, the quashing petition was later
    rejected on 12.12.2018, and following this, the investigation resumed.
    Thus, it would not be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR or
    grant anticipatory bail to the appellant at this stage. Additionally, it
    has been submitted that the appellant has multiple antecedents,
    with at least ten FIRs registered against him, including one in CID
    Crime, Rajkot Zone, concerning the alleged illegal allotment of 150
    acres of government land. The State argued that, given the nature of
    allegations and the appellant’s involvement in multiple similar cases,
    custodial interrogation was necessary, and the prayer for quashing
    of the FIR or for anticipatory bail should not be entertained.
17. The prayer seeking quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings
    is refused, as the allegations against the applicant involve serious
    allegations of misuse of official position, criminal breach of trust, and
    alleged corrupt practices in the discharge of public duties. The case
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                       2099

               Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Anr.


     against the applicant pertains to his passing an order that allegedly
     favoured private allottees despite their long absence from the country
     and despite his own transfer from the concerned jurisdiction. The
     contentions raised by the State, particularly regarding the lack of
     jurisdiction of the applicant at the time of passing the impugned order,
     the alleged collusion in disregarding the legal status of the land, and
     the purported misrepresentation involving deceased appellants, all
     indicate that the matter requires further and thorough investigation.
     The scope of allowing a prayer for quashing is limited and is to be
     exercised only in exceptional cases where it is manifestly clear that
     no offense is made out. However, in the present case, the FIR and
     the materials relied upon by the prosecution prima facie disclose
     the commission of cognizable offences, warranting a full-fledged
     investigation. Moreover, the allegations against the appellant
     cannot be adjudicated merely based on the pleadings and require
     scrutiny of official records and procedural compliance. At the stage
     of investigation, Courts should refrain from preemptively quashing
     criminal proceedings unless there is an evident abuse of process.
     Since the appellant’s contentions relate to factual disputes that need
     verification through proper investigatory mechanisms, it would be
     inappropriate for this Court to exercise its inherent powers to quash
     the proceedings at this stage.
18. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that
    the matter is to be investigated primarily based on documentary
    evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail
    to the appellant. The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of
    administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct
    physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial
    interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity
    for the custodial interrogation of the appellant beyond scrutiny of
    official records, which can be done without placing him in detention.
    Additionally, the appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate
    with the investigation, and no material has been placed before this
    Court to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the investigation
    in any manner. Furthermore, it is well-settled that anticipatory bail can
    be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly
    in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the
    presence of the accused can be secured without pre-trial detention.
    The Court also takes note of the fact that the FIR in question is part
2100                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     of a series of similar allegations against the appellant, and in the
     absence of any concrete material indicating a likelihood of tampering
     with evidence or influencing witnesses, the grant of anticipatory bail
     is justified. Accordingly, while the appellant shall cooperate with the
     investigation as and when required, he shall not be taken into custody,
     subject to conditions imposed hereinafter to ensure his participation
     in the inquiry process.
19. In light of the observations made above, we do not find any merit in
    the appeal warranting interference with the impugned order passed
    by the High Court declining to quash the FIR, in question, i.e. FIR
    I-C.R. No. 33/2011 registered with Tankara Police Station, Rajkot
    (Rural). Accordingly, the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.354 of
    2019 is dismissed.
20. The appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.2812 of 2019 is allowed.
    Further, we provide that the appellant upon arrest may be released
    upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
    only) to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the present
    case, subject to following two conditions:
     i.      Firstly, the appellant will extend all cooperation during the
             investigation; and
     ii.     Secondly, if the Investigating Agency requires custodial
             investigation, it may apply to the concerned Magistrate for
             appropriate orders, and the said application will be considered/
             decided on its own merits without being influenced by any of
             the observations made by us.
21. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: SLP (Crl.) No. 354 of 2019 dismissed and
     SLP (Crl.) No. 2812 of 2019 allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan