STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS versus CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 259 · Decided: 21-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 1990 
A 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
B 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, I950: Article 226-Quashing of criminal 
proceedings-Circumstances under which power could be exercised-
Guidelines given. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 
159-Cognizable offence-Field of investigation-Exclusive domain of 
investigating agencies-Court's interference-When justified. 
Section 482-/nherent powers of courts-Exercise of-Circums-
tances necessitating quashing of criminal proceedings-Guidelines 
indicated. 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Section 5-Investigation by 
designated officers-Express prohibition of officers below certain 
rank-Whether directory or mandatory-Exceptions only on adequate 
reasons-To be disclosed-Authorising such non_designated officers 
without reasons-Whether legal and valid-Investigation carried on by 
such officer-Quashing of. 
Words & Phrases: "Reason to suspect"-Meaning of. 
c 
D 
E 
The First Respondent was a Minister and subsequently Chief 
F 
Minister of Haryana State, Later he became Union Minister. On 
12.11.1987 a complaint was presented before the Haryana Chief Minis-
ter, wherein serious allegations were leveUed against the First Respon-
dent. The main aUegations were that he accumulated huge properties 
worth crores of rupees in the names of bis family members, relations 
and persons close to him by misusing his power and position and by 
G 
undervaluing the market price, and all those transactions were bena-
mi in character. According to the complainant, since the accumulation 
of the properties by the First Respondent, in the shape of buildings, 
land, shares, ornaments etc. was far beyond his legal means, an investi-
gation should be directed against him. 
259 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
The Chief Minister's Secretariat marked the complaint to the 
Director General of Police, who in torn endorsed the same to the 
Superintendent of Police concerned. On the direction from the Snperin· 
tendent of Police, the SHO registered a case nnder Sections 161 and 165 
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 5(2) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1947 and took up the investigation. 
Meanwhile, the First Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the 
High Conrt for a direction to quash the First Information Report and 
for restraining the appellants from proceeding further with the investi· 
gation. The High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings holding 
that the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence for commenc· 
ing lawful investigation. 
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellants 
preferred the present appeal by special leave, contending that the alle· 
gations contained in the complaint, either individually or collectively, 
constituted a cognizable offence warranting the registration of a case as 
contemplated nnder Section 154(1) Cr. P.C., and a thorough investiga-
tion in compliance with various statutory provisions more particularly 
Sections 156, 157 and 159 Cr. P.C. 
On behalf of the Respondents, it was contended that on account of 
the deep rooted political animosity and rivalry entertained by the then 
Chief Minister, he used the complainant, who was stooge in his hands, 
to file the complaint containing false and scurrilous allegations against 
the First Respondent and hence the criminal proceedings rightly 
deserved to be quashed. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The judgment of the High Court quashing the First 
Information Report is set aside as not being legally and factually SU!l· 
tainable in law. However, the commencement as well as the entire 
investigation, if any, so far done is quashed on the ground that the third 
appellant °(SHO) is not clothed with valid legal authority to take up the 
G 
investigation and proceed with the same within the meaning of Section 
5A(l) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. [319A-C] 
2. The observations made by the High Court are unwarranted 
and the historical anecdote is out of context and inappropriate. If snch a 
view is to be judicially accepted and approved, then it will be tant· 
H 
amount to laying down an alarming pro!JOsition that an incoming 
STATE OF HARYANA v. CH. BHAJAN LAL 
261 
Government under all circumstances, should put its seal of approval to 
all the commissions and omissions of the outgoing Government ignoring 
e

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