Supreme Court quashes case against public servant over factional dispute.

The Supreme Court has held that where the allegations in a charge sheet do not disclose any prima facie offence and the prosecution is clearly initiated due to internal factional fights in an organisation rather than any criminal culpability of the accused, the court is duty-bound to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made the observation while quashing the charge sheet against B S Solanki, then Assistant Registrar, Firms & Societies at Jabalpur, finding that he was prosecuted for his official act of issuing a registration certificate in accordance with the statutory procedure and based on valid documentation.

Why did the Supreme Court quash the prosecution against Solanki?

Solanki was accused of offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 109, 409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 49, 316(5) and 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, respectively] and Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with alleged misappropriation of funds and illegal transactions involving land belonging to a Trust registered as a Society.

A charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Jabalpur, on July 20, 2023, arraying Solanki along with P C Singh, the then Bishop of Jabalpur Diocese, and others.

The allegation against Solanki was that he had forged a certificate relating to the change of name of the Nagpur Diocesan Board of Education, Jabalpur to Board of Education Church of North India, Jabalpur Diocese. It was alleged that the certificate dated July 11, 1959 was a clear forgery.

Solanki's counsel submitted that the date related to the original registration of the Society and that the certificate was issued under Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, on a proposal made by the Society.

The Supreme Court found that the change of name had followed the prescribed procedure. The Executive Council had recommended the change to the General Council, which passed a resolution at an extraordinary meeting on December 7, 2002. After Solanki pointed out defects in the initial application, a fresh application curing those defects was submitted, following which the registration certificate was issued on February 19, 2003.

The Bench noted that Section 10 required the Registrar to register an amendment if satisfied that it was not contrary to the Act or Rules and to issue a certificate upon payment of the prescribed fee. It further noted that there was no dispute that the applications were submitted in the prescribed form or that the certificate was issued on February 19, 2003.

The allegation that Solanki had colluded with P C Singh was also not supported by the records, Court found. The minutes showed that Singh was neither a member of the Executive Council nor the General Council and had not signed the minutes of either body. He had also taken charge long after the change in name, the Bench noted.

Factional dispute led to criminal case

The Bench held that the allegations and records did not establish any criminal culpability on Solanki's part.

"On the conspectus of the circumstances explained, 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," Court held.

Court further said that "a mere look at the allegations levelled and the records produced herein would clearly indicate that the appellant was not culpable at all, and it cannot be said that the misappropriation was on account of the change of name".

Court also asked the respondent's counsel whether any civil dispute had been raised, to which the counsel answered in the negative.

"We find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the high court and we reverse it," the Bench said.

The Supreme Court accordingly quashed the charge sheet filed before the Special Judge (P.C. Act), Jabalpur, against Solanki and directed that the case would not proceed against him.

Case Title: B S Solanki Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: July 24, 2026

Tags: