K. KARUNAKARAN versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 29-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

K. KARUNAKARAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
MARCH 29, 2000 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND R.P. SETHI, JI.] 
B 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 154 & 482-FIR registration 
of-Earlier petitions and appeals seeking registration of FIR against the 
appellant dismissed-Subsequently FIR lodged-Petition of appellant u/s. 482 
dismissed by High Court-In appeal, plea of ma/a.fide raised for the first 
C 
time-Held, Registration of FIR cannot be held to be result of ma/a.fide-If 
during preliminary enquiry, commission of offence comes to light on the basis 
of new material, the officials are obliged to register a case and present it in 
a competent court of jurisdiction. 
During the chief ministership of the appellant, Kerala State Supplies 
D 
Corporation entered into a contract with a foreign company for the pur-
chase of import of Palmolein. 
One 'K' filed petition under Article 226 before High Court seeking 
direction for registration of appropriate crime case in the matter of 
import of Palmolein, and seeking appropriate investigation of the matter 
and registration of case under Prevention of Corruption Act, on the 
ground that the transaction in the matter was against rules, regulations 
and guidelines fixed by the Government of India resulting in heavy 
pecuniary advantage to the foreign based company. The petition was 
dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the report of Comptrol-
ler & Auditor General did not reveal commission of any offence. 
'V' an Opposit~on MLA, presented FIR before Superintendent of 
Police (Vigilance) against some persons including the appellant, for regis-
tration of a case under Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption 
Act and under Sections 406, 409; 420, 201, 34 and 120B of IPC. The 
Superintendent of Police refused to register the case on the ground that as 
per G.O. dated 12.5.1992 they could not initiate inquiry in such matter and 
should report such complaints to the Government in Vigilance Department 
which was to issue necessary instructions in the matter. 'V' filed writ 
petition before High Court, seeking direction to the Superintendent of 
735 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E' 
F 
G 
H 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
Police to register crime case pursuant to the FIR lodged by him and to 
investigate the same in accordance with law. The petition was dismissed. 
The writ appeal against the dismissal order was dismissed by Division 
Bench of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition filed against the 
judgment of the Division Bench was also dismissed without assigning any 
reasons. 
In the assembly elections, the appellant lost, and another party came 
into power. The Commissioner-Secretary, vide letter dated 18.6.1996 re-
quested the Director of Vigilance, Investigation to conduct a preliminary 
enquiry into the allegations in Palmolein deal case, and submit his report to 
the Government. Preliminary enquiry was conducted and criminal case 
was registered under section 1 3(1)( d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and 
under section 120B of IPC, against 7 persons including the appellant. 
Appellant filed a case under section 482 Cr.P.C. before High Court 
for quashing of the proceedings. The petition was dismissed holding that 
there was no bar in registering a case and conducting investigation, as fresh 
matter had come to the notice of the investigating agency. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that order dated 
18.6.1996 was actuated by extraneous considerations and assailed the GO 
dated 12.5.1992; that the source of power for registering the FIR being 
illegal and violative of the mandate of judgment of his court in Vineet 
Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Am:, [1998] 1 SCC 226, the appellant 
cannot be subjected to harassment of a criminal trial; and that the registra-
tion would amount to overriding the judgments of the High Court and this 
Court and thus would amount to contempt of court having been filed 
without new material. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The registration of the FIR against the appellant and 
others cannot be held to be the result of malafides or actuated by 
extraneous considerations. The menace of corruption cannot be permit-
ted to be hidden under the carpet of legal technicalities. In such matters 
probes conducted are required to be determined on facts and in accord-
ance with law. The allegations of malafides were admittedly not the basis 
for challenging the basis of the FIR in the High Co

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