{"id":255403,"date":"2021-10-09T16:05:13","date_gmt":"2021-10-09T10:35:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=255403"},"modified":"2021-10-15T10:49:50","modified_gmt":"2021-10-15T05:19:50","slug":"explained-is-preliminary-enquiry-mandatory-in-all-corruption-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/09\/explained-is-preliminary-enquiry-mandatory-in-all-corruption-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Explained| Is Preliminary Enquiry mandatory in all corruption cases?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court:<\/strong> The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*<\/strong>, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that a Preliminary Enquiry is not mandatory in all cases which involve allegations of corruption.<\/p>\n

The Court said that in case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a \u201csource information\u201d, discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry, where the officer is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.<\/p>\n

Holding that the institution of a Preliminary Enquiry in cases of corruption is not made mandatory before the registration of an FIR under the CrPC, Prevention of Corruption Act or even the CBI Manual, the Court said that issuing a direction to that affect will be \u201ctantamount to stepping into the legislative domain.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

However, it was made clear that holding the aforesaid will not take away from the value of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry in an appropriate case.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe registration of a Regular Case can have disastrous consequences for the career of an officer, if the allegations ultimately turn out to be false. In a Preliminary Enquiry, the CBI is allowed access to documentary records and speak to persons just as they would in an investigation, which entails that information gathered can be used at the investigation stage as well. Hence, conducting a Preliminary Enquiry would not take away from the ultimate goal of prosecuting accused persons in a timely manner. However, we once again clarify that if the CBI chooses not to hold a Preliminary Enquiry, the accused cannot demand it as a matter of right.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Important rulings <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh,<\/span><\/em>\u00a0(2014) 2 SCC 1<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

If the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence at the outset, no Preliminary Enquiry would be required. Further, the scope of a Preliminary Enquiry is not to check the veracity of the information received, but only to scrutinize whether it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.<\/p>\n

Union of India v. State of Maharashtra,<\/span><\/em> (2020) 4 SCC 761<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court reversed the decision of a two Judge Bench in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454<\/a> [Read more<\/a>] <\/strong>which had, inter alia, held that \u201ca preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Scheduled Cases and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated\u201d.<\/p>\n

The three Judge Bench held that such a direction was impermissible since neither the CrPC nor the Atrocities Act mandate a preliminary inquiry.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIn case a cognizable offence is made out, the FIR has to be outrightly registered, and no preliminary inquiry has to be made (\u2026). The direction would mean that even if a complaint made out a cognizable offence, an FIR would not be registered until the preliminary inquiry is held. In case a preliminary inquiry concludes that allegations are false or motivated, FIR is not to be registered, in such a case how a final report has to be filed in the Court. Direction 79.4 cannot survive for the other reasons as it puts the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in a disadvantageous position in the matter of procedure vis-\u00e0-vis to the complaints lodged by members of upper caste, for latter no such preliminary investigation is necessary. In that view of the matter it should not be necessary to hold preliminary inquiry for registering an offence under the Atrocities Act, 1989.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Read more\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n

Charansingh v. State of Maharashtra,<\/span><\/em>\u00a0 (2021) 5 SCC 469<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

An enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible and not only permissible but desirable, more particularly in cases where the allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring the assets\/properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. After the enquiry\/enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage\/preliminary enquiry, if, on the basis of the material collected during such enquiry, it is found that the complaint is vexatious and\/or there is no substance at all in the complaint, the FIR shall not be lodged.<\/p>\n

However, if the material discloses prima facie a commission of the offence alleged, the FIR will be lodged and the criminal proceedings will be put in motion and the further investigation will be carried out in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be permissible only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR would be registered. Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be in the interest of the alleged accused also against whom the complaint is made.<\/p>\n

Read more\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n

[CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 923<\/b><\/a>, 08.10.2021]<\/p>\n

__________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

Counsels:<\/strong><\/p>\n

For CBI: Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General<\/p>\n

For respondents: Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Dave<\/p>\n

\n

*Judgment by: Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud<\/strong><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge| Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n