Supreme Court restores complaint against DMK Minister Senthil Balaji in cash-for-job case; sets aside Madras High Court order

The Supreme Court on Thursday restored a 2018 criminal complaint against current Tamil Nadu power minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader, Senthil Balaji, in an alleged cash-for-jobs case [P Dharamaraj vs Shanmugam and ors]..A bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian held that the High Court's ruling quashing the complaint was erroneous and unsustainable."It is needless to point out that corruption by a public servant is an offence against the State and the society at large. The Court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for specific performance, where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement holder" the Court said. .The minister who was then part of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) is alleged to have taken money towards appointment of government bus drivers and conductors back in 2014 -2015. Balaji, then the State transport minister, and his brother and administrative allies were named in the complaint. The original complainant had alleged that he had paid money to get some persons selected for the posts. When those selections did not happen, he asked the accused to return the money but they threatened him. A Special Court to try cases against legislators took on record the final report by the police indicting the accused for offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 420 (cheating), 506(1) (intent to incite) read with Section 34 (criminal act by several for common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).After one of the accused filed a quashing petition before the Madras High Court, the complainant and the victims who had paid money agreed to a compromise and supported the plea. It was contended that the case was only a money dispute and the same had been settled out of Court as the initial complaint only got more serious due to political rivalries.The High Court had allowed the quashing plea noting that “by passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and that no useful purpose would be achieved by keeping the criminal case pending”.The present appeals arose after one P Dharamaraj, who was not a party to the proceedings before the High Court but had applied for the concerned posts at the time, filed a special leave petition. Other such pleas were also filed before the top court by those similarly-placed as Dharamaraj..Counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Supreme Court that it was shocking to see that a matter of this nature, where the bribegiver and bribetaker came together, was allowed to be closed on ground of compromise. It was contended that the prosecution itself was guilty of not including in the chargesheet, the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), thereby, enabling the quashing. Counsel for the respondents-accused argued that no offence was made out under the PC Act, the case was one of harassment owing to political rivalry that arose out of a private dispute, and that the petitioners had no locus standi to appeal the High Court's order. It was argued that none of the names for whom money was allegedly paid were eventually appointed. .The Bench at the outset stated that the argument on locus was denying the 'existence of the obvious', as the petitioners were all affected/victims."We cannot shy away from the fact that candidates, who are selected and appointed to posts in the Government/public corporations by adopting corrupt practices, are eventually called 20 upon to render public service. It is needless to say that the quality of public service rendered by such persons will be inversely proportionate to the corrupt practices adopted by them. Therefore, the public, who are recipients of these services, also become victims, though indirectly, because the consequences of such appointments get reflected sooner or later in the work performed by the appointees," the Court said.It called the original/de-facto complainant's actions of questioning the locus as well as supporting the quashing complaint through a compromise memo, 'deplorable', 'shocking' and warranting 'something more than mere condemnation'.As to the settlement, the Bench emphasised that the offence of criminal breach of trust by a public servant is not a compoundable one. Citing multiple judgments of the top court, the Bench further observed," ... it is clear from the march of law that the Court has to go slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties, when the offences are capable of having an impact not merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others".The High Court's orders 'affix a seal of approval' on the alleged irregular appointments made, the apex court said. It also came down upon the argument of the counsel towards no PC Act offences being made out, as well as the Investigating Officer (IO) leaving out the same in his final report, stating that for such events 'the less said the better.' Given that the modus operandi by the accused had been detailed, the Court noted,"We are constrained to say that even a novice in criminal law would not have left the offences under the P.C. Act, out of the final report. The attempt of the I.O. appears to be of one, “willing to strike but afraid to wound” (the opposite of what Alexander Pope wrote in “Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot”).".It, therefore, restored the criminal complaint and directed the IO to file a further report based on the observations made."Additionally/alternatively, the Special Court before which the CC is pending, shall exercise power under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., if there is any reluctance on the part of the State/I.O. If two other cases where offences under the P.C. Act are included, are under the orders of stay passed by the High Court, the State should take appropriate steps to have the stay vacated," the Bench further ruled. The Bench stated that it was not passing any orders on the prayers made towards constituting a Special Investigation Team or appointing a Special Public Prosecutor, "since we do hope that based on the observations made above, the State itself may do the needful." .Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar appeared for Dharamaraj.Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan along with advocate Balaji Srinivasan appeared for applicant S Prithvirajan.Senior Advocate AN Venugopala Gowda along with advocate Garima Jain appeared for another applicant Y Balaji. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the Anti Corruption Movement. Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Manan Kumar Mishra, CA Sundaram and S Prabhakaran appeared for the respondents-accused. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the original complainant. .[Read Judgment]