CHARANSINGH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 3 S.C.R. 704 · Decided: 24-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
   [2021] 3 S.C.R. 704
704
CHARANSINGH
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2021)
MARCH 24, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD
AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Preliminary enquiry –
Corruption case – A complaint was received against the appellant
in the office of the Director General, Anti-corruption Bureau,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai on 7.2.2018, wherein various
allegations were made against the appellant and his brothers with
regard to accumulating the assets disproportionate to his known
sources of income – At that time the appellant was a Member and
President of Municipal Council – In connection with the said
complaint, Police Inspector, Anti-corruption Bureau had issued
notice dated 04.03.2020 to the appellant asking him to provide
documents relating to his property, assets, bank statements, income
tax returns and to give statement to the police – Feeling aggrieved
with the said notice calling upon the appellant to personally remain
present before the investigating officer of the Anti-corruption
Bureau, Nagpur to give his statement in an ‘open enquiry’ in respect
of the property owned by him along with the information on the
points stated in the said notice, the appellant preferred writ petition
before the High Court – High Court dismissed the writ petition – In
the instant appeal, question which arose for the consideration was
whether such an enquiry at pre-FIR stage would be legal – Held:
An enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible and not only
permissible but desirable, more particularly in cases where the
allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring the
assets/properties disproportionate to his known sources of income
– After the enquiry/enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage/
preliminary enquiry, if, on the basis of the material collected during
such enquiry, it is found that the complaint is vexatious and/or there
is no substance at all in the complaint, the FIR shall not be lodged
– However, if the material discloses prima facie a commission of the
offence alleged, the FIR will be lodged and the criminal proceedings
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
705
will be put in motion and further investigation will be carried out in
terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Therefore, such a
preliminary enquiry would be permissible only to ascertain whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR would
be registered.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Preliminary enquiry –
Extent of, permissibility – By the impugned notice, during the course
of the ‘open enquiry’, the appellant was called upon to give his
statement and to carry along with the information on the points,
which are referred for the purpose of recording his statement – The
information sought on the said points had direct connection with
the allegations made against the appellant, namely, accumulating
assets disproportionate to his known sources of income – However,
such a notice, while conducting the ‘open enquiry’, shall be
restricted to facilitate the appellant to clarify regarding his assets
and known sources of income – The same cannot be said to be a
fishing or roving enquiry. Such a statement cannot be said to be a
statement under s.160 and/or the statement to be recorded during
the course of investigation as per the Code of Criminal Procedure
– Such a statement even cannot be used against the appellant during
the course of trial – Statement of the appellant and the information
so received during the course of discrete enquiry shall be only for
the purpose to satisfy and find out whether an offence under
s.13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 is disclosed – Such a statement cannot
be said to be confessional in character, and as and when and/or if
such a statement is considered to be confessional, in that case only,
it can be said to be a statement which is self-incriminatory, which
can be said to be impermissible in law – Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(e).
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 While considering the larger question, whether
police is duty bound to register an FIR and/or it is mandatory for
registration of FIR on receipt of information disclosing a
cognizable offence and whether it is mandatory or the police officer
has option, discretion or latitude of conducting preliminary enquiry
before registering FIR, this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari
has observed that it is mandatory to regi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.