2021 Supreme(SC) 156

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Charansingh – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.363 of 2021 (Arising from S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 6764 of 2020)
Decided On : 24-03-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible and desirable, more particularly in cases where allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring assets/properties disproportionate to his known sources of income.
(2) Even at the stage of registering FIR, police officer is not required to be satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed.
(3) A GD entry recording information by informant disclosing commission of a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and police has power and jurisdiction to investigate the same.

Headnote:

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(e) – Accumulating assets disproportionate to known sources of income – Issuance of notice for interrogation – On the basis of complaint against him, appellant is facing various allegations with regard to accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, when appellant was a public servant – At that stage and while considering veracity of allegation of accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, investigating agency has thought it fit to hold an ‘open enquiry’ and during course of such ‘open enquiry’ appellant has been called upon to make his statement-Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of indulging into corrupt practice and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into allegations by a responsible officer – Enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible and not only permissible but desirable, more particularly in cases where allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring assets/properties disproportionate to his known sources of income – After enquiry/enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage/preliminary enquiry, if, on the basis of material collected during such enquiry, it is found that complaint is vexatious and/or there is no substance at all in complaint, FIR shall not be lodged – However, if material discloses prima facie commission of offence alleged, FIR will be lodged and criminal proceedings will be put in motion and further investigation will be carried out in terms of Code of Criminal Procedure – Such a preliminary enquiry would be permissible only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR would be registered – Such a preliminary enquiry would be in interest of alleged accused also against whom complaint is made. (Paras 7.1, 9 and 9.1)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 160 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(e) – Issuance of notice for interrogation – Accumulating assets disproportionate to known sources of income – A GD entry recording information by informant disclosing commission of a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and police has power and jurisdiction to investigate the same – However, in an appropriate case, such as allegations of misconduct of corrupt practice by a public servant, before lodging FIR and further conducting investigation, if preliminary enquiry is conducted to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not, no fault can be found – Even at stage of registering FIR, what is required to be considered is whether information given discloses commission of a cognizable offence and information so lodged must provide a basis for police officer to suspect commission of a cognizable offence – At this stage, it is enough if police officer on the basis of information given suspects commission of a cognizable offence and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed – In present case, office of Director General, ACB, had received complaint against appellant and his three brothers, wherein various allegations have been made against appellant with regard to accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income – After considering enquiry report, Director General of Police, ACB had directed Superintendent of Police who in turn had directed Police Inspector, ACB, to conduct ‘open enquiry’ and during course of conducting an ‘open enquiry’, appellant against whom allegations are made of accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, which can be said to be an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of PC Act, has been served with impugned notice, impugned before High Court – A fool-proof safeguard and procedure is provided before lodging FIR/complaint before Court against public servant who is facing allegations of corrupt practice – Such an enquiry would be conducted to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not – Even at the stage of registering FIR, police officer is not required to be satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed – As such, holding such enquiry, may be discrete/open enquiry, at pre-registration of FIR stage in case of allegation of corrupt practice of accumulating assets disproportionate to known sources of income, cannot be said to be per se illegal – No reason to interfere with impugned judgment and order passed by High Court – Appeal dismissed with clarifications/observations. (Paras 9.2, 10, 10.1, 13 and 14)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition No. 226 of 2020, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition challenging notice dated 04.03.2020 issued by the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur, calling upon appellant to personally remain present before the investigating officer of the Anti-corruption Bureau, Nagpur to give his statement in an ‘open enquiry’ in respect of property owned by him along with the information on the points stated in the said notice, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. Short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is, whether such an enquiry at pre-FIR stage would be legal and to what extent such an enquiry is permissible?

Findings of Court:

Even at the stage of registering the first information report, the police officer is not required to be satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is enough if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence as the information only sets in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. Therefore, as such, holding such an enquiry, may be discrete/open enquiry, at preregistration of FIR stage in the case of allegation of corrupt practice of accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, cannot be said to be per se illegal.

Result : Appeal dismissed.