LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SH. B.R. BAJAJ AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-{
A
UNION OF.INDIA AND ORS.
v.
SH. B.R. BAJAJ AND ORS.
JANUARY 18, 1994
B
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY .Ai'JD G.N. RAY, JJ.)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.482-lnherent powers of High
Court-Criminal proceedings-F./.R.-Held, ·when F.I.R. discloses commis-
7 r
sion of cognizable offence which had still to be investigated thoroughly by
C police, court should not exercise the power to investigate whether offence al-
leged in F./.R. is committed or not.
The Chandigarh· Unit of Indian Council of Child Welfare was
granted permission to run a lottery in order to raise funds for the welfare
D of the handicapped children. In the second week of August 1985 the
Council invited tenders for running the lottery. The Tender Committee
opened tenders on 29.8.1985 and sent their recommendations to respon-
dent no.1 the then Finance Secretary in State Government, recommending
. that tender of the second highest tenderer should be accepted as the first
highest tenderer had already withdrawn his offer.· Respondent no.1 ac-
E , cepted the recommendations and marked the file to the President of the
Council. However, on 21.10.1985 respondent no.1 recorded a note pur-
ported to have been made after discussion with the President of the
~ouncil stating that the second highest tenderer was not a reliable and
suitable party and since the third highest tenderer had also withdrawn,
F
the contract may be finalised with the fourth highest tenderer. The file was
marked to the President who approved the proposal of respondent no.1.
Meanwhile the fourth and the fifth highest tenderers witladrew on the
ground of inordinate delay. Thereafter the Committee recommended to
offer the lottery to the sixth highest tenderer. Respondent no.1 made a note
G to that efl'ect and after discussing the matter.with the President, proposal
was approved and ultimately the lottery came to be awarded to the sixth
highest tenderer.
The Delhi Special Police Establishment, Cha~digarh came to know
. that fourth, fifth and sixth highest tenderers were all sister concerns and
H they had entered into a conspiracy with a view to gaining undue pecuniary
138
U.0.I. v. B.R. BAJAJ
139
benefit and causing corresponding loss to the Council, and respondent A
no.1 with this object in view recorded a false note on 21.10.1985 against the
second highest tenderer. Accordingly an F.I.R. was registered against
respondent no.1, fourth to sixth highest tenderers and some others for
offences punishable under s.120-B, read with s.418, s.468 I.P.C. and s.5(2)
read with s.S(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The investigation B
was entrusted to the C.B.I. Chandigarh.
Respondent no.1 filed a petition under s.482, Cr.P.C. in the High
Court for quashing of the F.I.R. against him and others. The High Court
allowed the petition and quashed the F.I.R. Hence the appeal by the Unian
of India and others.
C
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The High Court bas grossly erred in quashing the F.I.R.
itself when several aspects of the allegations in the F.I.R. had still to be
investigated. There are some important allegations in the F.I.R. which D
make out a cognizable offence at that stage and the registration of an F.I.R.
is only the beginning of the investigation. [146-G-H, 147-A]
1.2. The F.I.R. shows that a false note was recorded by respondent
no.1 with a view to help one of the tenderer companies and its sister
concerns. Before the· agreement with the sixth highest tenderer and the E
Council was signed, the second highest tenderer had sent a telegram and
also a complaint alleging mal-practices in the awarding of the contract.
Even after receiving such a telegram respondent no.1 did not take any
steps to stop the loss to the council. [146-E-F]
F
1.3. The High Court while coming to the conclusion that the allega-
tions in the F.I.R. do not disclose any offence bas taken into consideration
several aspects including the guidlines, normal duty 1of respondent no.I
etc. It went further in considering several other records produced by
respondent no.I and certain other documents, and investigated whether
the offences alleged in the F.I.R. are made out or not. The High Court has G
treated the whole matter as though it was an appeal against the order of
conviction. That should never be the approach in exercising the power
under s. 482 Cr.P.C. particularly at the stage of F.I.R. when the same
discloses commission of a cognizable offencExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.