LexTHE STATE OF CHATTISGARH & ANR versus AMAN KUMAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. THE STATE OF CHATTISGARH & ANR. v. AMAN KUMAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC (Criminal Appeal Nos. 646-648 of 2023) MARCH 01, 2023 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.] Constitution of India – Art.226 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(b), (2) – FIR registered against one ‘AS’ and his wife ‘YS’ – FIR quashed by High Court – Justification of – Held: In the present case, FIR does make out a case of cognizable offence having been committed by ‘AS’ and ‘YS’ – Power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases – Whenever its powers are invoked either u/Art.226 or s.482, CrPC for quashing an FIR/complaint, the Courts would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein – An FIR can be registered merely on suspicion thus, the High Court ought to have realized that the FIR which according to it was based on “probabilities” ought not to have been interdicted – An FIR based on “probability” of a crime having been committed is of a higher degree as compared to the one lodged on a “mere suspicion” that a crime has been committed – Extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice – High Court erred in quashing the FIR – Impugned judgment set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Disproportionate assets case – FIR registered against one ‘AS’ and his wife ‘YS’, public servants – Political vendetta alleged against ‘AS’, who was the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister in the previous regime – Held: Allegations levelled were vague and general – Mala fide motives are required to be affirmatively pleaded and proved – However, if criminal prosecution is based upon adequate evidence and the same is otherwise justifiable, it does not become vitiated on account of significant political overtones and mala fide motives – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 134 134 A B C D E F G H 135 No cogent grounds for quashing the FIR in the present case even on the ground of mala fide. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Quashing of FIR – Approach of High Courts – Held: Considerations that apply to quashing of FIRs pertaining to offences punishable under general penal statutes ex proprio vigore may not be applicable to a P.C. Act offence – In cases under the P.C. Act, the proper course for the high courts would be to permit the investigation to be taken to its logical conclusion and leave the aggrieved party to pursue the remedy made available by law at an appropriate stage. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Disproportionate assets case – Importance of preliminary enquiry – Discussed. Criminal Law – Inept drafting of FIR – Effect of – Discussed. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The complaint lodged with the Chief Minister does specifically allege that although AS came from a very humble background, as evident from his Annual Property Return filed at the time of joining IRS, “he has managed to amass disproportionate assets of more than 2500 crores contrary to his legal sources of income”. One could view it as a tall claim, which is thoroughly unsubstantiated. However, it cannot be wished away because of the revelations of the preliminary inquiry which led to registration of the FIR and have formed part thereof. Although it is true that it is for the prosecution to build up a case that AS, as a public servant, amassed such wealth or even wealth of any lesser value that is disproportionate to his known sources of income, and which could not satisfactorily be accounted for by him, while it files the police report, it does not seem to be a requirement of law when the FIR was registered on 25th February, 2020 that facts and figures with exactitude need to form part of a first information report. It is found on perusal of the FIR that although not specifically mentioned, 2004 to 2018 is the “check period” during which AS and YS have acquired property disproportionate to their known sources of income. There are certain calculations projecting the quantum of money that both AS and YS received towards salaries, interest and value for properties sold. It is true that the FIR could have been drafted better. Since a first THE STATE OF CHATTISGARH & ANR. v. AMAN KUMAR SI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.