Cognizable offence and valid investigation rules: FIR must be registered, but police authorisation under anti-corruption law must be strict.

Information disclosing a cognizable offence triggers the statutory duty to register an FIR under Section 154(1), and the police may investigate under Sections 156 and 157 without first testing the truth or credibility of the allegations; the FIR could not be refused merely because the facts were disputed. The High Court's inherent or writ powers may be used to quash criminal proceedings only in exceptional cases where no offence is disclosed or a clear legal bar exists, so threshold quashing was not justified on the materials then available. Investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act required strict compliance with Section 5A(1); the entrustment to the SHO without valid specific authorisation was invalid, and the investigation already undertaken was quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether information disclosing a cognizable offence obliges registration of an FIR and permits investigation under the Code; (ii) whether the High Court could quash the FIR and criminal proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 or under Section 482 of the Code at the threshold; (iii) whether the investigation by the Inspector/SHO into offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code was valid without strict compliance with Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Issue (i): whether information disclosing a cognizable offence obliges registration of an FIR and permits investigation under the Code.

Analysis: Section 154(1) casts a statutory duty on the officer-in-charge to record information disclosing a cognizable offence. The police officer is not entitled, at that stage, to test the truth, credibility, or reliability of the information. Once a cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed, the police may proceed under Sections 156 and 157, subject to the statutory condition that there must be reason to suspect the commission of such offence. A non-cognizable offence may be investigated only in the manner permitted by Section 155.

Conclusion: Registration of the case was mandatory on the facts disclosed, and the FIR could not be rejected merely because the allegations were disputed.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court could quash the FIR and criminal proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 or under Section 482 of the Code at the threshold.

Analysis: The extraordinary and inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. Quashing is justified only where the allegations, even if accepted in full, do not disclose any offence, where there is an express legal bar, where the proceeding is manifestly mala fide, or in other recognised exceptional categories. The Court cannot undertake an enquiry into the truth or reliability of the allegations at the investigation stage, nor can it stifle a legitimate investigation when a cognizable offence is disclosed.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR on the materials then available.

Issue (iii): whether the investigation by the Inspector/SHO into offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code was valid without strict compliance with Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Analysis: Section 5A(1) is mandatory. Investigation of offences under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be by the designated rank of officer, and where authorisation is invoked, the order must disclose reasons and satisfy the statutory safeguards. The officer directing investigation must record reasons showing good and sufficient grounds for entrusting the matter to a lower-ranking officer. The general authorisation under the Government order did not cure the absence of a valid specific order for the present investigation, and no valid authority existed for investigating the IPC offences on the footing adopted by the police.

Conclusion: The direction entrusting investigation to the SHO was invalid and the investigation already undertaken was quashed on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the FIR quashing was set aside, but the investigation already commenced was annulled for want of valid statutory authority, leaving liberty to the State to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: If a cognizable offence is disclosed, the FIR must be registered and the investigation ordinarily cannot be interdicted, but any investigation by a lower-ranking officer must strictly satisfy the statutory authorisation and procedural safeguards governing that offence.

---