2024 (4) TMI 1162 - SCH - Indian Laws

Seeking quashing of proceedings in a criminal case based on a High Court judgment - offence under Section 120B and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - As far as the role played by the appellant is concerned, it is an admitted position that she is the allottee of a plot and the allotment was made on 5th June, 2009. At this stage, attention is invited to the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2023 passed by the High Court on a petition filed by the accused no.5 praying for quashing the proceedings in CC No.14/2019. By the said judgment, the High Court has quashed the same as against the accused no.5. A perusal of the findings recorded in paragraph nos.10, 11 and 12 of the said judgment shows that the case of the present appellant is on par with the case of the accused no.5 and there is no material factual distinction between the allegations against these two accused. Therefore, even the case of the appellant will be governed by the said judgment of the High Court. The proceedings against the appellant on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly at Chennai, is hereby quashed - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Quashing of proceedings in a criminal case based on a High Court judgment.
- Applicability of the High Court judgment to the present appellant.
- Decision on the appeal and continuation of proceedings against other accused.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, granted leave and heard the senior counsel for both parties. The appellant, accused no.2 in CC No.14/2019, faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court had previously quashed proceedings against accused no.5, leading to a query about the State challenging that decision. The State had not contested the High Court's ruling. The Supreme Court noted that the findings in the High Court's judgment indicated that the appellant's case was similar to that of accused no.5, with no material factual differences between the allegations against them. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings against the appellant in CC No.14/2019, while directing the continuation of proceedings against the other accused. This decision was based on the parity of the appellant's case with that of accused no.5 as per the High Court's judgment.

This judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of a High Court decision in quashing proceedings against one accused to a similar case involving another accused. The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the factual findings and legal aspects of both cases to determine the applicability of the High Court's ruling to the present appellant. The Court emphasized the absence of material distinctions between the cases of the appellant and accused no.5, leading to the conclusion that the appellant's case fell within the scope of the High Court's judgment. The decision to quash the proceedings against the appellant was based on this comparative analysis and the principle of consistency in legal treatment among similarly situated individuals.

The Supreme Court's judgment showcases a meticulous examination of the legal implications of the High Court's decision on the present appellant's case. By allowing the appeal and quashing the proceedings against the appellant, the Court demonstrated a commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and uniformity in judicial outcomes. The Court's decision to continue proceedings against the other accused underscored the nuanced approach taken in balancing individual circumstances with the broader legal framework. Overall, this judgment highlights the significance of judicial precedent and the careful consideration given to ensuring equitable treatment in criminal proceedings.