Cognizable offence threshold for investigation: suspicious corruption information can justify police inquiry without full FIR particulars.

Information that on its face disclosed corruption allegations against a public servant was sufficient to create reasonable suspicion of a cognizable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to set the investigative machinery in motion. A first information report need not contain every ingredient of the offence or full particulars at the threshold; once cognizable offence is disclosed, police may investigate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Questions about strict compliance with search and seizure procedure, or whether a later formal report was the operative FIR, were not grounds to quash the investigation at that stage. The High Court's quashing order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the information recorded in the general diary disclosed a cognizable offence so as to justify investigation and whether the High Court was correct in quashing the general diary entry, the first information report, the investigation and the seizure.

Analysis: The information stated that the respondent was a corrupt public servant, that he had demanded and accepted about one lakh rupees by way of illegal gratification, and that he was carrying that amount while travelling to Nagpur. Such information was sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was enough to set the investigative machinery in motion. A first information report need not contain every ingredient of the offence or all details of the occurrence. Once the information discloses a cognizable offence, the police are entitled to investigate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The question whether the search and seizure strictly complied with the procedural requirements of the Code, and whether the later formal report was the operative first information report, was not a ground for quashing the investigation at that stage.

Conclusion: The general diary entry disclosed a cognizable offence and the investigation could not be quashed. The High Court erred in setting aside the proceedings and directing return of the seized articles.

Ratio Decidendi: Information which on its face discloses a cognizable offence need only create a reasonable suspicion to justify investigation, and it is not necessary at the first stage that the report contain full particulars or all ingredients of the offence.

---