Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, B V Nagarathna, JJ.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CB) and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T. H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1597 of 2021)
Decided On : 08-10-2021
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) – Possession of Disproportionate Assets – Preliminary Enquiry is not mandatory when information received discloses commission of a cognizable offence – Even when it is conducted, scope of a Preliminary Enquiry is not to ascertain veracity of information, but only whether it reveals commission of a cognizable offence – Need for a Preliminary Enquiry will depend on facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said to be mandatory requirement without which a case cannot be registered against accused in corruption cases – FIR will not stand vitiated because a Preliminary Enquiry has not been conducted – Where relevant information regarding prima facie allegations disclosing a cognizable offence is available, officer recording FIR can proceed against accused on the basis of information without conducting a Preliminary Enquiry – Since an accused public servant does not have a right to be afforded a chance to explain alleged Disproportionate Assets to Investigating Officer before filing of charge-sheet, similar right cannot be granted to accused before filing of FIR by making a Preliminary Enquiry mandatory. (Paras 15, 17, 19 and 20)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 109 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Para 8.26 of CBI Manual – Possession of Disproportionate Assets – Abetment – CBI cannot be faulted for conducting a Preliminary Enquiry in accordance with CBI Manual – FIR in present case has been registered on the basis of “Source Information” – Both during course of hearing and in affidavit filed by CBI, it has been explained that CBI found information and documents while investigating another case – Preliminary Enquiry is not mandatory in all cases which involve allegations of corruption – Scope of a Preliminary Enquiry is not to check veracity of information received, but only to scrutinize whether it discloses commission of a cognizable offence – Since institution of a Preliminary Enquiry in cases of corruption is not made mandatory before registration of an FIR under Cr.P.C., PC Act or even CBI Manual, for this Court to issue a direction to that affect will be tantamount to stepping into legislative domain – In case information received by CBI, through a complaint or a “source information”, discloses commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry, where officer is satisfied that information discloses commission of a cognizable offence – However, such formulation does not take away from value of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry in an appropriate case – Registration of a Regular Case can have disastrous consequences for career of an officer, if allegations ultimately turn out to be false – Conducting a Preliminary Enquiry would not take away from ultimate goal of prosecuting accused persons in a timely manner – However, if CBI chooses not to hold a Preliminary Enquiry, accused cannot demand it as a matter of right. (Paras 23, 26, 29, 32 and 33)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Quashing Petition – Scope of review – Well settled test is whether, as they stand, allegations contained in FIR make out an offence – Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule – High Court does not conduct a mini-trial or a roving inquiry while exercising its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – This principle also applies squarely to exercise of powers by a High Court under Article 226 of Constitution while considering a writ petition for quashing an FIR. (Paras 35, 36 and 41)
(D) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 109 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Para 8.26 of CBI Manual – Possession of Disproportionate Assets – Abetment – Documents such as Income Tax Returns cannot be relied upon as conclusive proof to show that income is from a lawful source under PC Act – Single Judge of Telangana High Court has acted completely beyond settled parameters which govern power to quash an FIR – Single Judge has donned role of a Chartered Accountant – Single Judge has completely ignored that Court was not at stage of trial or considering an appeal against a verdict in a trial – Single Judge has enquired into material adduced by respondents, compared it with information provided by CBI in FIR and their counter-affidavit and then pronounced a verdict on merits of each individual allegation raised by respondents largely relying upon documents filed by them – Reasons provided by Single Judge for entering into merits of dispute while quashing FIR are specious – While exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution to adjudicate on a petition seeking quashing of an FIR, High Court should have only considered whether contents of FIR – as they stand and on their face – prima facie make out a cognizable offence – Veracity of documents of sale is something that can only be determined at stage of trial – Fact that other case during whose investigation these documents were seized has now been closed does not affect FIR in present case, since charges against first respondent are entirely different – Documents which have been relied upon by respondents cannot form basis of quashing FIR – Value and weight to be ascribed to documents is a matter of trial – Investigation is stated to be at an advanced stage and is likely to conclude within a period of two to three months – Impugned Judgment set aside – Appellant can continue with its investigation based upon FIR. (Paras 40, 46, 47, 48, 52 and 53)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from a judgment dated 11th February 2020 of a Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana, by which: (i) a writ petition1 filed by respondents under Article 226 of Constitution of India was allowed; and (ii) First Information Report dated 20th September 2017 registered against the respondents was set aside, together with proceedings taken up pursuant to the FIR. Based on submissions, this Court is called upon to decide two questions: (i) whether the CBI is mandatorily required to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry before registration of an FIR in every case involving claims of alleged corruption against public servants; and (ii) independent of the first question, whether the judgment of the High Court to quash the FIR can be sustained in the present case.
Findings of Court:
In present case, the appellant is challenging the very “source” of respondents’ income and the questioning the assets acquired by them based on such income. Hence, at the stage of quashing of an FIR where the Court only has to ascertain whether the FIR prima facie makes out the commission of a cognizable offence, reliance on the documents produced by the respondents to quash the FIR would be contrary to fundamental principles of law. The High Court has gone far beyond the ambit of its jurisdiction by virtually conducting a trial in an effort to absolve the respondents.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The registration of an FIR under the relevant criminal procedure law is mandatory if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and a preliminary enquiry is not required in such cases. The scope of a preliminary enquiry is only to determine whether the information discloses a cognizable offence, not to verify the veracity of the information (!) (!) (!) .
Conducting a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR is not a mandatory requirement in all cases, including those involving allegations of corruption or possession of disproportionate assets. The decision to conduct a preliminary enquiry depends on the facts and circumstances of each case (!) (!) .
The scope of judicial review in proceedings to quash an FIR is limited to assessing whether the allegations, as they stand, prima facie disclose a cognizable offence. Courts should avoid conducting mini-trials or roving inquiries and should only examine the contents of the FIR at face value (!) (!) .
The power of courts to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or where continuation of the proceedings would cause manifest injustice. The courts should not interfere with the investigation unless there are clear grounds that the FIR is baseless or malicious (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation process should be allowed to proceed without interference from the courts unless it is evident that the FIR is legally untenable or based on false information. Courts should not conduct detailed scrutiny of evidence or documents at the FIR stage, as this is the domain of trial proceedings (!) (!) .
The decision to quash an FIR based on the verification of documents or the assessment of assets and income at the initial stage is inappropriate. Such detailed analysis is reserved for subsequent stages of trial and investigation. The court's role is limited to determining whether the FIR, on its face, discloses a cognizable offence (!) (!) .
The legal framework and procedural guidelines, including the relevant manual, do not mandate a preliminary enquiry before registration of an FIR in cases of corruption or disproportionate assets. The authorities can proceed directly to register a case if the information indicates the commission of a cognizable offence (!) (!) .
The investigation can be initiated based on source information or documents seized during other investigations, provided that such information reasonably discloses a cognizable offence. The validity of the investigation is not dependent on prior verification or a formal preliminary enquiry (!) (!) .
The assessment of documents such as income tax returns or valuation reports at the FIR stage should be regarded as preliminary and not conclusive. Their evidentiary value is to be determined during trial, and courts should avoid making definitive findings about the lawfulness of income or assets at this stage (!) (!) .
The jurisdiction of courts to interfere with the investigation or quash FIRs is limited, and courts should exercise caution to prevent encroaching upon the investigative domain of authorities. Interference is only justified in cases where the FIR is manifestly false, frivolous, or based on mala fide motives (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal principles emphasize that the registration of an FIR should not be hindered by mandatory preliminary enquiries, and courts should restrict their review to the face of the FIR, allowing investigations to proceed unless there are clear legal defects.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are:
B Factual and procedural history
C Counsel’s submissions
D Whether a Preliminary Inquiry is mandatory before registering an FIR
D.1 Precedents of this Court
D.2 CBI Manual
D.3 Analysis
E Whether the FIR should be quashed
E.1 Scope of review before the High Court
E.2 Whether the FIR is liable to be quashed in the present case
F Conclusion
A The Appeal
1. The appeal arises from a judgment dated 11 February 2020 of a Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana, by which: (i) a writ petition1[Writ Petition No 8552 of 2018] filed by the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was allowed; and (ii) the First Information Report2[“FIR”] dated 20 September 2017 registered against the respondents was set aside, together with proceedings taken up pursuant to the FIR.
2. The first respondent is a Commissioner of Income Tax while the second respondent is her spouse. The second respondent is a Member of the Legislative Assembly3[“MLA”] and is a Minister in the State government of Andhra Pradesh. The FIR4[FIR No RC MAl 2017 A 0021] dated 20 September 2017 has been registered against the first respondent for being in possession (allegedly) of assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. The second respondent is alleged to have abetted the offence. The FIR has thus been registered for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 19885[“PC Act”] and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code 18606[“IPC”]. The allegation is of possession of Disproportionate Assets to the tune of Rs 1,10,81,692, which was 22.86 per cent of the income earned during the check period between 1 April 2010 to 29 February 2016.
3. While quashing the FIR, the High Court held that: (i) the information about the respondents’ income can be ascertained from their ‘known sources of income’ under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, such as their Income Tax Returns, information submitted to their department under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 19647[“CCS Rules”] and affidavit filed under the Representation of the People Act 19518[“RP Act”] and the Rules under it; (ii) to counter the veracity of the information from these sources, the appellant, Central Bureau of Investigation9[“CBI”], should have conducted a Preliminary Enquiry under the Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime) Manual 200510[“CBI Manual”] before registration of the FIR; and (iii) on the basis of the information ascertained from these ‘known sources of income’, the allegations against the respondents in the FIR prima facie seem unsustainable. This view of the High Court has been called into question in these proceedings.
B Factual and procedural history
4. Since 1992, the first respondent is a Civil Servant of the Indian Revenue Services11[“IRS”], and was working as Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit -II), Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry when the FIR was registered against her. She is presently working as Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit) at Hyderabad. The second respondent is the spouse of the first respondent, and was also a Civil Servant working in the Indian Railway Accounts Services till 2009. At the time of the registration of the FIR, he was and continues to be, at present, an MLA of the State of Andhra Pradesh and holds the post of the Minister of Education for the State of Andhra Pradesh. He was also a Member of the Committees on Assurances, SC&ST Welfare and Public Accounts.
5. The FIR was registered against the respondents by CBI’s Anti-Corruption Branch12[“ACB”] in Chennai on 20 September 2017. The FIR noted that the “check period” was between 1 April 2010 and 29 February 2016. The FIR records that it was registered on the basis of “source information” received by the CBI ACB Chennai on the
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
