Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI - Appellant
VERSUS
N.S. GNANESWARAN - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2008
Decided on : 9-1-2013.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 –Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) - Quash - FIR - Court - Filed Section to quash FIR proceedings is that sub section - Contemplate that copy of such information recorded shall be issued forthwith free of cost to informant is mandatory requirement - On basis of said legal contention respondent has sought for quashing same - Legal contention is accepted by High Court and recorded finding on basis of the perusal of information sought to have been received by appellant herein is bald in sense that application Section has no place nor could it be said that case has been registered in accordance with law - Therefore it came to conclusion that it is not case registered in accordance with law and such case is registered deviating from procedure contemplated Section - Same is bereft force of law and same is non in law and for this reason High Court has quashed FIR - Correctness of said findings assigned by Judge is challenge in this appeal raising –Held, Court ruled that it can be stated as general principle that it is not every piece of information however vague indefinite and unauthenticated it may be that should be recorded as the first information for the sole reason that such information was the first, in point of time, to be received by the police regarding the commission of an offence - Full Bench also took care to make it clear that whether or not statement would constitute first information report in case is question of fact and would depend upon circumstances of that case is registered on basis of information received after specifying that information reveals prima facie cognizable offence against respondent herein and found that matter is fit for investigation to be taken by appellant herein in not following provisions of Section does not vitiate registration FIR and further proceedings in matter of registration - Therefore request made by appellant to set aside impugned order specifying aforesaid procedure laid down Manual and also decision of this Court referred to supra and not complying with mandatory procedure Section does not vitiate registration FIR against respondent and further there is no need for this Court to await larger Bench decision on issue in case – Appeal allowed
Key Points: - The test for mandatory vs directory provisions under Section 154 Cr.P.C. depends on legislative intent, non-compliance consequences, and public interest (!) (!) . - A copy of the FIR under Section 154(2) Cr.P.C. is directory, not mandatory, and non-compliance does not vitiate FIR registration (!) . - FIR can be registered on the basis of information revealing prima facie cognizable offence, and following CBI Manual procedure does not vitiate registration (!) (!) . - The principle states not every vague or unauthenticated information must be recorded as first information, and whether a statement constitutes FIR is a question of fact (!) (!) . - Lack of prejudice to the accused for non-disclosure of FIR copy means the quashing of FIR on technical grounds was not warranted (!) (!) . - The appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, permitting investigation to proceed in accordance with law (!) .
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25th November, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.M.P.No.2302 of 2003 filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), for quashing the FIR in Cr.No.RC MAI 2002A 0052 dated 11.10.2002 urging various legal contentions.
2. For the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties the brief facts are stated hereunder.
The appellant herein registered a case against the respondent under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent had challenged the said FIR registered against him and sought for quashing of the same. The principal legal contention urged before the High Court in the Cr.M.P. filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR proceedings is that sub-section (2) of Section 154, Cr.P.C. contemplate that a copy of such information recorded shall be issued forthwith, free of cost to the informant, is a mandatory requirement. On the basis of the said legal contention the respondent has sought for quashing the same. The said legal contention is accepted by the High Court and recorded a finding on the basis of the perusal of the information sought to have been received by the appellant herein is bald in the sense that application under Section 154, Cr.PC. has no place nor could it be said that the case has been registered in accordance with law. Therefore, it came to the conclusion that it is not a case registered in accordance with law and such a case is registered, deviating from the procedure contemplated under Section 154, Cr.P.C. The same is bereft of the force of law and the same is non-est in law and for this reason the High Court has quashed the FIR. The correctness of the said findings assigned by the learned Judge is under challenge in this appeal raising the following issues:-
(I) Whether the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case was justified in allowing the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.?
(II) Whether an FIR registered on the basis of recorded information disclosing commission to cognizable offence and under Section 154(1), Cr.P.C. for the purposes of conducting investigation of the case under Sections 156 and 157, Cr.P.C. is permissible in law?
(III) Whether the High Court in its impugned decision has correctly interpreted Section 154, Cr.P.C. with reference to its ambit and scope of and has correctly read the said Section in juxta-position with Sections 156 and 157 Cr.P.C?
3. In support of the said issues, the learned senior counsel Mr.K. Radhakrishnan, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has placed strong reliance upon the CBI (Crime) Manual of 2005 -- Chapter 8 regarding registration of Complaints and Source of Information, which Manual has been prepared as per the observations made by a larger Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vineet Narain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1998) 1 SCC 226]. The learned senior counsel has invited our attention to paras 8.26 and 8.27 which provisions state that collection of source of information must be submitted in writing giving all available details of specific acts of omissions and commissions and copies of documents collected discreetly. The verification of SIRs must begin only after the competent authority has approved its registration. At this stage regular SIR number will be assigned to the SIR which will also be entered in the Source of information sub-module of CRIMES Module with all other details. As per para 8.28, the SIR may be classified as SECRET. These files must be maintained by the S.P. in his office. In view of the aforesaid procedure required to be followed by the appellant herein as per the CBI Manual, which is in conformity with the observations made by the decision of this Court such procedure is required to be followed by the appellant In
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
