Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
State of Haryana and others, Appellants
Versus
Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5412 of 1990, Dt.21.11.1990.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 307- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947- Appeal Against Conviction - First Information Report - Everyone whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever he may be, however high he is, he is under the law. No matter how powerful he is and how rich he may be - heated and lengthy argument advanced in general by all the learned counsel on the magnitude and the multi-dimensional causes of corruption and also about the positive and constructive remedial measures and steps to be taken for its eradication has necessitated us to give a brief exordium about its perniciousness, though strictly speaking, we would be otherwise not constrained to express any opinion on this - Held, In the light of the above decisions of this Court, we feel that the said observations made in the impugned judgment are unwarranted and the historical anecdote is out of context and inappropriate. We are afraid if such a view is to be judicially accepted and approved, then it will be tantamount to laying down an alarming proposition that an incoming Government under all circumstances, should put its seal of approval to all the commissions and omissions of the outgoing Government ignoring even glaring lapses and serious misdeeds and the deleterious and destructive consequences that may follow therefrom. Hence we are constrained to express our disapproval since the text, tenor and tone of the above observations leave us with the feeling that such misplaced sympathy indicated therein appears to have considerably weighed with the learned Judges in taking the extreme step in quashing the First Information Report - Order accordingly.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The fundamental principle is that everyone, regardless of status, is under the rule of law and is subject to legal accountability (!) (!) .
The investigation process for cognizable offenses is governed by statutory provisions that require the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving credible information indicating a cognizable offense, without the police's discretion to refuse registration based on credibility (!) (!) .
The police are empowered to investigate cognizable offenses without prior approval from a magistrate, but such investigations must be conducted within the legal framework and with due regard to procedural safeguards (!) (!) .
The initiation of investigation depends on the police having "reason to suspect" the commission of a cognizable offense, which must be based on articulable facts, not mere suspicion or vague allegations (!) (!) .
The power to investigate is limited by statutory provisions, including specific mandates for the authority of police officers of certain ranks and the requirement of proper orders for investigation of certain offenses, especially under anti-corruption laws (!) (!) .
The courts generally do not interfere with police investigations unless there is a clear violation of legal procedures, abuse of power, or if the allegations do not disclose any offense or are frivolous, vexatious, or motivated by mala fide intentions (!) (!) (!) .
The exercise of extraordinary or inherent judicial powers to quash FIRs or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offense or where continuation would amount to abuse of process or cause undue harassment (!) (!) .
The courts emphasize that the primary responsibility for investigating criminal offenses lies with the police, and judicial intervention at early stages should be limited to prevent unwarranted interference, unless procedural violations or absence of offense are evident (!) (!) .
The document underscores the importance of procedural compliance, especially regarding the authority of police officers under specific statutory provisions, and highlights that violations, if discovered at early stages, should be rectified without invalidating the entire proceeding unless the breach is fundamental (!) (!) .
The judiciary advocates for a balanced approach, ensuring that investigations are conducted lawfully and efficiently, but also cautions against premature quashing of FIRs based solely on untested allegations or political considerations (!) (!) .
In cases where allegations are found to be false, malicious, or motivated by personal vendetta, the appropriate remedy is to initiate separate proceedings under relevant criminal laws for false accusations or defamation, rather than to dismiss the FIR outright (!) (!) .
The legal framework mandates that investigations and subsequent proceedings should be initiated and conducted by competent authorities with proper legal authority, and any deviation or illegal exercise of powers should be corrected by the courts to uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights (!) (!) .
The courts stress that the decision to quash proceedings should be made with caution, considering whether the allegations, if accepted at face value, do or do not constitute an offense, and whether continuation would result in unnecessary harassment or injustice (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal principles reinforce that judicial intervention in criminal investigations should be limited, procedural safeguards must be strictly followed, and investigations should proceed within the bounds of law unless clear violations or lack of offense are established.
6JUDGMENT
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:-Leave granted.
2. "The king is under no man, but under God and the law" - was the reply of the Chief Justice of England, Sir Edward Coke when James-I once declared "Then I am to be under the law. It is treason to affirm it" - so wrote Henry Bracton who was a Judge of the Kings Bench.
3. The words of Bracton in his treatise in Latin "quod Rex non debat esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et Lege". (That the king should not be under man, but under God and the law) were quoted time and time again when the Stuart kings claimed to rule by divine right. We would like to quote and requote those words of Sir Edward Coke even at the threshold.
4. In our democractic polity under the Constitution based on the concept of Rule of law which we have adotped and given to ourselves and which serves as an aorta in the anatomy of our democratic system. THE LAW IS SUPREME.
5. Everyone whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever he may be, however high he is, he is under the law. No matter how powerful he is and how rich he may be.
6. The heated and lengthy argument advanced in general by all the learned counsel on the magnitude and the multi-dimensional causes of corruption and also about the positive and constructive remedial measures and steps to be taken for its eradication has necessitated us to give a brief exordium about its perniciousness, though strictly speaking, we would be otherwise not constrained to express any opinion on this.
7. At the outset we may say that we are not inclined to make an exhaustive survey and analysis about the anatomy, dimensions and causes of corruption. It cannot be gainsaid that the ambiguity of corruption is always associated with a motivation of private gain at public expense.
8. Though the historical background and targets of corruption are reviewed time after time; the definitional and conceptual problems are explored and the voluminous causes and consequences of corruption are constantly debated throughout the globe, yet the evils of corruption and their auto narcotic effect pose a great threat to the welfare of society and continue to grow in menacing proportion. Therefore, the canker of the venality, if not fought against on all fronts and at all levels, checked and eradicated, will destablize and debilitate the very foundations of democracy; wear away the rule of law through moral decay and make the entire administration ineffective and dysfunctional.
9. Mere rhetorical preaching of apostolic sermons listing out the evils of corruption and raising slogans with catch-words are of no use in the absence of practical and effective steps to eradicate them; because evil tolerated is evil propagated.
10. At the same time, one should also be alive to cases where false and frivolous accusations of corruption are maliciously made against an adversary exposing him to social ridicule and oblique with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance due to past animosity or personal pique or merely out of spite regardless of the fact whether the proceedings will ultimately culminate into conviction or not.
11. We would like to make it clear that the above exordial note is given without casting any aspersion against any of the parties to the present proceedings or touching the individual merit of the case.
12. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal, though have been set out in great detail in the impugned judgment of the High Court, have to be recapitulated in order to enable us to give our own reasons for the findings which we will be arriving at on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (the Code for short) and of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the Act for short).
13. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed by the appellants, namely, the State of Haryana and two others assailing the judgment dated 8-9-1989 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rendered in Writ Petition No. 9172/87*
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
