Back
A second FIR is maintainable if a subsequent investigation reveals a conspiracy with broader ramifications and a larger canvas than the original. The state's power of superintendence allows entrusting further investigation to a central agency, even if a charge sheet was previously filed for a narrower scope of the offence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 2(h), 2(o), 36, 173(8) and 190; Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 6; Police Act, 1861 - Section 3; Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d)(e) and 13(2); Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226 and 142 - Registration of a second First Information Report (FIR) on the same cause of action is permissible if the subsequent investigation reveals a larger conspiracy with broader ramifications than the initial investigation (Paras 44-49).
(B) State Government's power of superintendence - The state possesses absolute power of superintendence over investigations under the Police Act, 1861, and may entrust further investigation to a central agency even after a charge sheet has been filed on a narrower scope of the offence (Paras 60-61).
(C) High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 - A High Court may direct a central agency to investigate a cognizable offence, particularly when the state政府 consents to such a transfer, as such a direction aligns with the preservation of a fair investigation (Paras 34, 58, 62).
Facts of the case:
Allegations of a systematic scam in the recruitment of government secretaries emerged, involving bribery and manipulation of records. An initial investigation by a state agency led to an FIR and the filing of a charge sheet against several individuals. Subsequently, a public interest litigation was initiated in the High Court. Following a probe and the state's consent, a central agency was authorized to investigate. The central agency registered a second FIR after a preliminary inquiry, uncovering a wider conspiracy involving numerous officials. The accused challenged the validity of the second FIR and the High Court's order for the central probe on the grounds that a charge sheet had already been filed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the first FIR was general and focused on individual acts, while the second FIR detailed a systemic fraud and conspiracy. Thus, the two were not identical in substance. The investigation by the central agency was a valid exercise of the state's supervisory power and the High Court's jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether a second FIR by a central agency is maintainable when a charge sheet had already been filed by a state agency on the same general cause of action, and whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to direct such an investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a later discovery reveals a conspiracy covering a much larger canvas with broader ramifications than the earlier investigation, it cannot be equated with the first. Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an enabling provision, and the state's power of superintendence is absolute. When the nature of the crime evolves from individual misconduct to a widespread scam, a further investigation by a specialized agency is legally permissible.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6198-6199 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 24777 – 24778 of 2005)
Nirmal Singh Kahlon
…. Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
…. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6200-6201 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 25226 – 25227 of 2005)
J.P. Singla and others
…. Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
…. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
S.B. SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
1.
These two appeals involving similar questions of law and fact were
taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
1
2.
Nirmal Singh Kahlon, Appellant in appeals arising out of SLP (C)
Nos. 24777-24778 of 2005 was the Rural Development and Panchayats
Minister in the Government of Punjab while the three appellants in appeals
arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 25226-25227 of 2005 were working as Deputy
Directors in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats,
Government of Punjab at the relevant time.
3.
The State of Punjab had enacted the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
4.
An advertisement for recruitment of 190 Panchayat Secretaries was
issued in the year 1992 for which written test was held in the year 1994 ;
however, the posts could not be filled. In the meantime 545 Panchayat
Secretaries were appointed on ad hoc basis by the State.
5.
One of the applicants, who applied for the post in response to the
advertisement of 190 posts, challenged the said ad hoc appointments by way
of a writ petition which was marked as C.W.P. No.9835 of 1996, titled
Palvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which was disposed of by a Division
Bench of the Court on 20th September, 1996 by directing inter alia the
2
completion of the selection process as well as for available posts with the
department. Selection against 190 posts of Panchayat Secretaries, for which
written test had already been held was to be finalized on or before 20th
November, 1996.
6.
Two more advertisements were issued; first on 17/18th September,
1996 for filling up 700 posts and second on 14th October, 1996 for filling
up 800 posts of Panchayat Secretaries respectively.
Another advertisement was issued on 19th September, 1998 inviting
applications from the female candidates also for the post of Panchayat
Secretaries.
In response to the abovementioned advertisements over 1.5 lacs
applications were received, the processing job whereof was handed over to
a Delhi based computer firm. Result of the written test was declared on or
about 14th October, 2000 in which 3286 candidates were declared
successful. They were called for interview.
3
However, no further action appears to have been taken pursuant
thereto or in furtherance thereof. Another writ petition was filed in the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana which was marked as CWP No.11912 of
2000, titled Harmesh Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others. By
an order dated 30th August, 2001, selection for the post of Panchayat
Secretaries was directed to be completed within one month. The said order
was not interfered with by this Court in a Special Leave Petition filed by the
State which was marked Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15843 of 2001
by an order dated 24th September, 2001. Interviews of the eligible
candidates were held thereafter and 908 candidates were selected.
7.
In or about March, 2002 a change in the State Government took
place. The Congress Party came into power after election. The new
Government made an attempt to reinstate the Panchayat Patwaris whose
services had been terminated by the previous Government pursuant to the
orders of the High Court.
8.
Selection of the said 908 candidates was the subject matter of another
writ petition which was marked as CWP No.5283 of 2003 entitled Veero
Devi v. State of Punjab and others. In the said writ petition the Court
4
formed a prima facie opinion that irregularities in the se
