BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AND ANR. versus THOMMANDRU HANNAH VIJAYALAKSHMI @ T. H. VIJAYALAKSHMI AND ANR.

Citation: [2021] 13 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 08-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 13 S.C.R.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AND ANR.
v.
THOMMANDRU HANNAH VIJAYALAKSHMI @ T. H.
VIJAYALAKSHMI AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 2021)
OCTOBER 08, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH
AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(e) –
Penal Code, 1860 – s.109 – Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime)
Manual 2005 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Corruption cases – Preliminary
enquiry if mandatory before registering an FIR – FIR registered
against first respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax on the basis
of “source information” for allegedly possessing assets
disproportionate to her known sources of income – Second
respondent, her husband is alleged to have abetted the offence –
FIR quashed by High Court inter alia holding that the appellant
should have conducted a Preliminary Enquiry before registration
of the FIR – On appeal, held: Institution of a Preliminary Enquiry
in cases of corruption is not made mandatory before the registration
of an FIR under the CrPC, PC Act or even the CBI Manual – In
case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a
“source information” under Chapter 8, discloses the commission
of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case
instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry – This does not take
away from the value of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry in an
appropriate case – High Court should have only considered whether
the contents of the FIR as they stand, prima facie make out a
cognizable offence instead of conducting a mini-trial – Documents
relied upon by the respondents cannot form the basis of quashing
the FIR as the value and weight to be ascribed to the documents is
a matter of trial – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside –
Appellant can continue with investigation based upon the FIR –
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – s.6.
[2021] 13 S.C.R. 364
364
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
365
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of FIR – Review by High Court
– Scope of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 If a Preliminary Enquiry is necessary, it is
covered by Chapter 9 of the CBI Manual. Two distinct principles
emerge from Para 9.1: (i) a Preliminary Enquiry is registered
when information (received from a complaint or source information
) after verification indicates serious misconduct on part of a public
servant but is not enough to justify the registration of a Regular
Case; and (ii) when the information available or after its secret
verification reveals the commission of a cognizable. The
precedents of this Court and the provisions of the CBI Manual
make it abundantly clear that a Preliminary Enquiry is not
mandatory in all cases which involve allegations of corruption.
Para 9.1 of the CBI Manual notes that a Preliminary Enquiry is
required only if the information (whether verified or unverified)
does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Even
when a Preliminary Enquiry is initiated, it has to stop as soon as
the officer ascertains that enough material has been collected
which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Hence,
the proposition that a Preliminary Enquiry is mandatory is plainly
contrary to law, for it is not only contrary to the decision of the
Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari but would also tear apart
the framework created by the CBI Manual. [Paras 27, 29]
[400-G-H; 401-E-H]
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP and others (2014) 2 SCC
1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713– followed.
1.2 Since the institution of a Preliminary Enquiry in cases
of corruption is not made mandatory before the registration of an
FIR under the CrPC, PC Act or even the CBI Manual, for this
Court to issue a direction to that affect will be tantamount to
stepping into the legislative domain. Hence, in case the
information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a -
“source information” under Chapter 8, discloses the commission
of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case
instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry, where the officer is
CBI v.  T. H. VIJAYALAKSHMI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 13 S.C.R.
satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence. The said formulation does not take away from
the value of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry in an appropriate
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.