2023 Supreme(SC) 175

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
The State Of Chattisgarh & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Aman Kumar Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos………………………… of 2023 (@SLP (Crl.) Nos.1703-1705 of 2022)
Uchit Sharma - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Chattisgarh & Ors. Etc. Etc. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos………………………. of 2023 (@SLP(Crl.) Nos.1769-1770 of 2022)
Decided on : 01-03-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Preliminary inquiry or probe becomes indispensable in a complaint of acquisition of disproportionate assets not only to safeguard interest of accused public servant, if such complaint were lodged with some malice, but also to appropriately assess quantum of disproportionate assets should there be some substance in complaint.
(2) If criminal prosecution is based upon adequate evidence and same is otherwise justifiable, it does not become vitiated on account of significant political overtones and mala fide motives.
(3) First information report in a disproportionate assets case must, as of necessity, prima facie, contain ingredients for perception that there is fair enough reason to suspect commission of a cognizable offence relating to “criminal misconduct” punishable under P.C. Act and to embark upon investigation.

Headnote:

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(b) and (2) – Economic Offences – Unsatiated greed for wealth has facilitated corruption to develop like cancer – If corrupt succeed in duping law enforcers, their success erodes even fear of getting caught – Tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing them appropriately is mandate of P.C. Act – Every effort ought to be made to achieve it by sifting grain from chaff – Law of land abhors any public servant to intentionally enrich himself illicitly during tenure of his service – Increase in assets of such a public servant tantamount to constitutionally impermissible conduct and such conduct is liable to be put under scanner of P.C. Act – Preliminary inquiry or probe becomes indispensable in a complaint of acquisition of disproportionate assets not only to safeguard interest of accused public servant, if such complaint were lodged with some malice, but also to appropriately assess quantum of disproportionate assets should there be some substance in complaint. (Paras 49 and 51)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(b) and (2) read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Economic Offences – Quashing of – Parameters – To weed out corrupt public servants, Government has to engage sincere and dedicated personnel for collecting and collating necessary material in this regard – If there be no interventions, investigation that is likely to follow in terms of Cr. P.C., could enable investigating officer to collect and collate entire evidence establishing essential links between public servant and property or pecuniary resources in dispute – Since snapping of any link in chain of circumstances could prove fatal to whole exercise, it is of utmost necessity that care and dexterity are not compromised. (Para 52)

(C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(b) and (2) read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Economic Offences – Quashing of – Parameters – FIR could have been drafted better – Since first information report is starting point for a long drawn investigative process – However, nothing significant turns on inept drafting of FIR in this case since it does make out a case of cognizable offence having been committed by accused – When investigation is yet to start, there should be no scrutiny to what extent allegations in a first information report are probable, reliable or genuine and also that a first information report can be registered merely on suspicion, High Court ought to have realized that FIR which, according to it, was based on “probabilities” ought not to have been interdicted – Viewed through prism of gravity of allegations, a first information report based on “probability” of a crime having been committed would obviously be of a higher degree as compared to a first information report lodged on a “mere suspicion” that a crime has been committed – High Court was not justified in its interference with investigative process and committed error of law in quashing FIR – Writ petitions before High Court would not have succeeded even if plea of mala fide were advanced and accepted as a ground of assail to FIR – Impugned Judgment and Order set aside. (Paras 56, 61, 65, 70 and 76)

(D) Malafide – Person against whom mala fide or bias is imputed should be impleaded as a party respondent to proceedings eo nomine and that in his/her absence no inquiry into allegations can be made – If criminal prosecution is based upon adequate evidence and same is otherwise justifiable, it does not become vitiated on account of significant political overtones and mala fide motives. (Paras 72 and 74)

Facts of the case:

Appellants call in question a common judgment and order dated 10th January, 2022 passed by Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur, whereby 3 writ petitions [WPCR 88 of 2020, WPCR 154 of 2020 and WPCR 206 of 2020] were disposed of. WPCR 88 of 2020, presented by Sri Aman Singh, was allowed by quashing FIR No. 9/2020 dated 25th February, 2020 under Section 13(1)(b) and (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau of the State. WPCR 154 of 2020, instituted by the wife of AS, Smt. Yasmin Singh, was partly allowed. Spouses were the joint petitioners in WPCR 206 of 2020, which was also allowed.

Findings of Court:

While we do not intend to fetter High Courts from intervening in appropriate cases, it is only just and proper to remind the courts to be careful, circumspect and cautious in quashing first information reports resting on mala fide of the nature alleged herein.

Result : Appeals allowed.