Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire

"We reiterate that the factional dispute in the organization led to the registration of the crime against the accused which by no stretch of imagination can be sustained." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that a public official cannot be dragged into criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act merely due to their involvement in routine administrative duties amidst private factional disputes.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran observed that when records clearly demonstrate the legality of an administrative action, allowing a prosecution to proceed would constitute a gross abuse of the process of law.

The appellant, B.S. Solanki, then Assistant Registrar of Firms & Societies, Jabalpur, found himself named as an accused in a criminal case alongside the then-Bishop of the Jabalpur Diocese. The case stemmed from an internal factional struggle within the Church of North India, resulting in charges under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act related to alleged misappropriation of funds and property sales.

Court Examines Procedural Integrity

The primary question before the court was whether the issuance of a registration certificate for a society name change could be construed as an act of forgery and corruption. The court was also called upon to determine if the administrative steps taken by the appellant under the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1973, were sufficient to warrant a criminal trial.

Administrative Compliance vs. Alleged Forgery

The prosecution had alleged that the appellant forged a registration certificate by backdating it to 1959. However, the bench observed that the date 11.07.1959 merely reflected the original registration of the society. Upon the legal amendment of the society's name in 2003, the registration continued from the original date, which is a standard statutory practice under the Act of 1973.

"The amendment recommended by the Executive Council and passed by the Members in the General Council only changes the name and the registration obtained remains to be that of 1959."

No Evidence of Collusion

The court further noted that the allegations of collusion with the primary accused, the then-Bishop, lacked any factual basis in the records. The bench highlighted that the Bishop was not a member of the councils that approved the name change and had no role in the administrative process handled by the appellant.

"It is seen from the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council and the General Council that the said person was not even a member of the Executive Council or in the General Council and had not affixed its signature on the minutes of either of these Councils."

Misuse of Corruption Laws

The bench expressed strong disapproval of the tendency to use criminal law to settle civil or internal organisational disputes. By failing to find any credible evidence of misappropriation linked to the appellant’s actions, the court emphasized that the chargesheet stood on fragile ground, essentially serving as a weapon in a private power struggle.

"A mere look at the allegations levelled and the records produced herein would clearly indicate that the appellant was not culpable at all."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings. The chargesheet against the appellant in Crime No. 80 of 2022 was quashed in its entirety, and the bench directed that all bail bonds furnished by the appellant stand cancelled, effectively shielding the official from further vexatious litigation.

Date of Decision: 24 July 2026