PC Act | 'Validity Of Sanction Must Be Decided In Trial' : Supreme Court Criticises HC Order Quashing Case Under S.482 CrPC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 26) overturned the Madras High Court's decision, which quashed a disproportionate assets case against a bureaucrat at the pre-trial stage after noting there were "bleak conviction prospects" and "invalid sanction” to prosecute the bureaucrat.

The bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that the High Court acted improperly by conducting a mini-trial at the pre-trial stage and quashing the case before the actual case material were brought on record. The Court noted that the issue of conviction prospects and invalid sanction are matters to be determined during the trial.

“We are of the clear opinion that the High Court has exceeded the well-established principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”, the court said.

“This is typically the problem that would arise when the High Court seeks to interdict proceedings and quash the criminal case before the relevant material to support the case of the prosecution is brought on record. Findings regarding the legality, validity, or delay in grant of sanction were premature. Validity of the sanction is an issue that must be examined during the course of the trial.”, the court added.

In this case, it was alleged that the Respondent-accused had acquired assets worth Rs. 26,88,057/- disproportionate to his income from the period between 2001-2008, and therefore, an FIR was registered against him under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”).

The Accused filed a discharge application before the trial court, however the same was rejected noting that there seems to be an existence of a prima facie case against the accused. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed before the High Court, which also resulted in dismissal, affirming the trial court's decision.

Subsequently, the accused filed a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court, which quashed the FIR, citing "bleak conviction prospects" and "invalid sanction," despite previously acknowledging a prima facie case against the Respondent.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Narasimha criticized the High Court for venturing into factual disputes (e.g., wife's real estate income, daughter's alleged gift, invalid sanction, etc.) that should be decided during trial.

The Court said “instead of determining “whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” based on the material, it asked the wrong question as to, “whether that would warrant a conviction.”

“we are of the opinion that this was not the stage where the court should have appraised the evidence and discharged the accused as if it was passing an order of acquittal.”, observed the court in State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 cited in the present case.

Applying the law to the facts of the case, the Court observed:

“Thus, 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, we find 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.”

Resultantly, the State's appeal was allowed, and the trial was directed to resumed with an order to expediate the same given the delay of 17 years.

Case Title: STATE Vs. G. EASWARAN

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Poornachandiran R, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR Mr. Praful Shukla, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv.