Munmun Kaur –
Published On: December 13, 2021 at 11:30 IST
The Apex Court while setting aside an order of Orissa High Court observed that the practice of allotment of government properties under discretionary quota shall be done away with as it leads to “Corruption, Nepotism, and Favoritism” and allotment by Public Auction shall be followed.
In 2005, a Criminal Case against three government officials working with the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) — Pratima Mohanty, S Prakash Chandra Patra, and Rajendra Kumar Samal was filed by the State Government.
The three were Accused of conspiring in allotting 10 commercial plots to their family members and relatives in Bhubaneswar. The Orissa High Court had ordered Quashing of the First Information Report.
On an Appeal of the State Government, a Bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna stating their dissent on High Court’s order observed that Quashing of a Criminal Case is an exception rather than the rule and that the Courts of such wider power shall handle this more cautiously as they are not required to go into the merits of the case at the initial stage.
The Bench also pointed out that such a power should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. The Appeal of the state government was therefore allowed.
The Verdict while referring to the power of Quashing Criminal Cases in Code of Criminal Procedure read, “Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the Criminal proceedings should not be Quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC when after a thorough investigation the Chargesheet has been filed. At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482 CrPC, the Courts are not required to go into the merits of the Allegations and/or Evidence in detail as if conducting the mini-trial,”
Also Read: When can a Constitution Bench be formed?
