1990 (11) TMI 386 - SC - Indian Laws

FIR Restored Under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC; Probe Quashed for Section 5A PC Act Breach, Fresh Investigation

SC held that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence and that the HC erred in quashing the FIR and investigation under Art. 226/Section 482 CrPC, as ... Interpretation of Statutes - Concept of 'Rule of Law' - compliance of the requirements to be satisfied by an Officer incharge of a police station before he enters into the realm of investigation of a cognizable offence after the stage of registration of the offence Under Section 154(1) - non-application of mind on the part of the police officials - expressions, 'reasonable complaint' and 'credible information' - Whether the order of the Court in quashing the First Information Report and the proceeding of the investigation is legally sustainable and if not, to what extent the said order suffers from legal infirmity. It seems that after the general election there were a number of criminal proceedings between the parties one of which being a criminal prosecution against Dharam Pal Under Section 307 IPC registered in Adampur police station. On account of the political rivalry and the institution of a number of criminal cases and counter cases there was bad-blood between Ch. Bhajan Lal on the one hand and Ch. Devi Lal on the other. HELD THAT:- The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the Courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the Court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. Needs no emphasis that no one can demand absolute immunity even if he is wrong and claim unquestionable right and unlimited powers exercisable upto unfathomable cosmos. Any recognition of such power will be tantamount to recognition of 'Divine Power' which no authority on earth can enjoy. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. The allegations made in the complaint, in our considered opinion, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence justifying the registration of a case and an investigation thereon and this case does not fall under any one of the categories of cases formulated above calling for the exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. itself. At this stage, when there are only allegations and recriminations but no evidence, this Court cannot anticipate the result of the investigation and render a finding on the question of mala fides on the materials at present available. therefore, we are unable to see any force in the contention that the complaint should be thrown overboard on the mere unsubstantiated plea of mala fides. Even assuming that Dharam Pal has laid the complaint only on account of his personal animosity, that, by itself, will not be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected. We have, so far, made a detailed and searching analysis on the legal issues with regard to the statutory duty of an Officer Incharge of a police station in registering the First Information Report and commencing the investigation thereon as well the principles relating to the exercise of extra-ordinary and inherent powers of the High Court in quashing either the FIR or the entire criminal proceedings as the case may be; and bearing in mind the enunciation of law, we have given our anxious consideration and careful thought to all the contentions made by all the learned Counsel with considerable force and emphasis. The resultant and inescapable logical conclusion which we unreservedly arrive at is that the order of the High Court quashing the First Information Report, viewed from any angle, cannot be sustained both on the question of law and facts. Consequently, we set aside that part of the judgment of the High Court quashing the First Information Report. Whether there is any valid order of the S.P. permitting the third appellant to investigate the offence falling under Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 - We hold that (1) as the salutary legal requirement of disclosing the reasons for according the permission is not complied with; (2) as the prosecution is not satisfactorily explaining the circumstances which impelled the S.P. to pass the order directing the SHO to investigate the case; (3) as the said direction manifestly seems to have been granted mechanically and in a very casual manner, regardless of the principles of law enunciated by this Court, probably due to blissful ignorance of the legal mandate and (4) as, above all, the SHO has got neither any order from the Magistrate to investigate the offences Under Sections 161 and 165 IPC nor any order from the S.P. for investigation of the offence Under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the manner known to law, we have no other option, save to quash that order of direction, reading 'investigate' which direction suffers from legal infirmity and also the investigation, if any, so far carried out. Nevertheless, our order of quashing the direction of the S.P. and the investigation thereupon will not in any way deter the first appellant, the State of Haryana to pursue the matter and direct an investigation afresh in pursuance of the F.I.R., the quashing of which we have set aside, if the State so desires, through a competent police officer, clothed with the legal authority in strict compliance with Section 5A(1) of the Act. We set aside the judgment of the High Court quashing the First Information Report as not being legally and factually sustainable in law for the reasons aforementioned; but, however, we quash the commencement as well as the entire investigation, if any, so far done for the reasons given by us in the instant judgment on the ground that the third appellant (SHO) is not clothed with valid legal authority to take up the investigation and proceed with the same within the meaning of Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as indicated in this judgment. Further we set aside the order of the High Court awarding costs with a direction that the said costs is payable to the first respondent (Ch. Bhajan Lal) by the second respondent (Dharam Pal). In the result, the appeal is disposed of accordingly but at the same time giving liberty to the State Government to direct an investigation afresh, if it so desires, through a competent Police Officer empowered with valid legal authority in strict compliance with Section 5 A(1) of the Act as indicated supra. Issues Involved:1. Rule of Law and Supremacy of Law2. Corruption and Its Impact on Democracy3. False and Frivolous Accusations4. Legal Principles Governing Registration of Cognizable Offences5. Judicial Review of Police Investigations6. Validity of Investigation by Non-Designated Officers7. Quashing of Criminal ProceedingsDetailed Analysis:1. Rule of Law and Supremacy of Law:The judgment emphasizes the principle that in a democratic polity based on the 'Rule of Law,' the law is supreme. It states, 'Everyone whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law.' This principle is reiterated to underline that no one, regardless of their status or power, is above the law.2. Corruption and Its Impact on Democracy:The judgment discusses the pervasive nature of corruption, stating that it poses a significant threat to the welfare of society and the foundations of democracy. It emphasizes that 'the canker of venality, if not fought against on all fronts and at all levels, checked and eradicated, will destabilize and debilitate the very foundations of democracy.'3. False and Frivolous Accusations:The judgment acknowledges the issue of false and frivolous accusations of corruption, which can be made maliciously to harm an adversary. It states, 'One should also be alive to cases where false and frivolous accusations of corruption are maliciously made against an adversary exposing him to social ridicule and oblique with an ulterior motive.'4. Legal Principles Governing Registration of Cognizable Offences:The judgment elaborates on the legal mandate under Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for registering a cognizable offence. It states, 'If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form.'5. Judicial Review of Police Investigations:The judgment discusses the limited scope of judicial review over police investigations. It states, 'The field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating agencies over which the Courts cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation.'6. Validity of Investigation by Non-Designated Officers:The judgment addresses the issue of investigation by non-designated officers under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It states, 'Section 5A of the Act is mandatory and not directory and the investigation conducted in violation thereof bears the stamp of illegality.' The court found that the third appellant (SHO) was not clothed with the requisite legal authority to investigate the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act.7. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings:The judgment outlines the categories of cases where the High Court can exercise its power to quash criminal proceedings. It states, 'The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.' The court found that the allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence, justifying the registration of a case and an investigation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court quashing the First Information Report (FIR) but quashed the commencement and entire investigation done so far due to the lack of valid legal authority of the investigating officer. The court granted liberty to the State Government to direct an investigation afresh through a competent police officer empowered with valid legal authority in strict compliance with Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.