STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION, TIRUCHIRAPALLI, TAMIL NADU versus V. JAYAPAUL

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 22-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI-
CORRUPTION, TIRUCHIRAPALLI, TAMIL NADU 
.. ~ 
v. 
V. JAYAPAUL 
B 
MARCH 22, 2004 
[MRS. RUMA PAL AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 154, 155 and 156·-
'I"". 
< 
c Investigation by Police officer, who prepared a First Information Report on 
receipt of information about corrupt practices of accused-High Court quashing 
the proceedings holding that the same police officer cannot lodge an FIR and 
take up investigation-Validity of-Held, a police officer can suo moto lodge 
an FIR on receipt of information and take up investigation-Hence, quashing 
of proceedings by High Court not valid. 
D 
Inspector of Police (Vigilance & Anti-Corruption), on receipt of 
I
information about the corrupt practices of respondent-accused prepared 
a First Information Report and registered the crime under Sections 420 
)'I 
and 201 JPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act. A copy of the FIR was lodged with trial 
E court. The same Inspector took up the investigation and filed a charge-
sheet against the respondent in the trial Court. The respondent filed an 
application before High Court to quash the proceedings on the ground 
that the police officer, who lodged the FIR, cannot take up investigation 
of the case. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the 
F 
proceedings holding that the investigation by the same police officer, who 
lodged the FIR, would prejudice the respondent inasmui:h as the 
investigating officer cannot be expected to act fairly and objectively. Hence 
the appeal by the State. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. There is nothing in the provisions of the Criminal 
Procedure Code which precluded the appellant from taking up the 
investigation. The fact that the said police officer prepared the FIR fHI the 
basis of the information received by him and registered the suspected crime 
does not disqualify him from taking up the investigation of the cognizable 
>"' 
offence. A suo motu move on the part of the police officer to investigate a 
H 
330 
STA TE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION 1·. V. JAY AP AUL 
331 
,,..,,) 
cognizable offence impelled by the information received from some source A 
is not outside the purview of the prnvisions contained in Sections 154 to 157 
CrPC or any other provisions of the Code. (333-A-CI 
State of UP. v. Bhagwant Kishore, AIR (1964) SC 221, referred to. 
1.2. The High Court neither found nor any argument was addressed 
to the effect that there is .a statutory bar against the police officer who B 
registered the FIR on the basis of the information received taking up the 
investigation. There is no principle or binding authority to hold that the 
I 
ri-
moment the competent police officer, on the basis of information received, 
• 
makes out an FIR incorporating his name as the informant, he forfeits 
his right to investigate. If at all, such investigation could only be assailed c 
on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the 
investigating officer. The question of bias would depend on the facts and 
circumstances of each case and it is not proper to lay down a broad and 
unqualified proposition, in the manner in which it has been done by the 
High Court, that whenever a police officer proceeds to investigate after D 
registering the. FIR on his own, the investigation would necessarily be 
unfair or biased. The police officer received certain discreet information, 
,>\ 
which, according to his assessment, warranted a probe and therefore made 
up his mind to investigate. The formality of preparing the FIR in which 
he records the factum of having received the information about the 
suspected commission of the offence and then taking up the investigation E 
after registering the crime, does not, by any semblance of reasoning, vitiate 
the investigation on the ground of bias or the like factor. If the reason 
which weighed with the High Court could be a ground to quash the 
prosecution, the powers of investigation conferred on the police officers 
would be unduly hampered for no good reason. What is expected to be 
done by the police officers in the normal course of discharge of their 
~, 
official duties will then be vulnerable to attack. (333-E-H; 334-A-C( 
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1976) SC 985 and Megha 
Singh v. State of Haryana, ( 1996] 11 SCC 709, distinguished. 
CRIM
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.