Rajasthan High Court Says Anti-Corruption Bureau Tried To Shield SBI Officials By Not Registering FIR In Bribery Case

The Rajasthan High Court recently observed that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) tried to shield the proposed accused SBI officials by failing to register an FIR despite finding substance in a corruption complaint during verification and subsequently planning a trap.

A bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain held that once verification of a complaint disclosed information indicating the commission of a cognizable offence, the ACB was obligated to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and conduct a full-fledged investigation. The matter could not be closed on the basis of a preliminary enquiry report.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a complainant challenging the closure report submitted by the ACB on his complaint alleging that senior officials of the State Bank of India (SBI) had demanded a bribe of ₹40 lakh from him.

The petitioner submitted that while serving as Chief Manager at SBI's Bhiwadi branch, he had detected a fake housing loan involving ₹51 lakh. He alleged that, in 2020, certain senior bank officials who were annoyed by his detection of the fraud lodged an FIR against him. After the police submitted a closure report in that case, his suspension was revoked. However, he claimed that he continued to face harassment and that the officials demanded ₹40 lakh to have the charges against him dropped.

The petitioner subsequently lodged a complaint with the ACB. According to his submissions, verification found substance in the allegations, following which the ACB organised a trap. However, the ACB did not register an FIR and instead proceeded towards closing the matter and recommending prosecution of the complainant for filing a false complaint. He therefore sought an impartial investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

After examining the record, the Court noted that the ACB had conducted verification and found substance in the complaint, following which a trap was planned. Despite this, no FIR was registered.

The Court observed,

“The principle of law as discussed hereinabove clearly indicate that after the verification of complaint, the ACB was under an obligation to register an FIR and undertake investigation pursuant to FIR but not in PE. This indicate that the ACB has made effort to shield the proposed accused, therefore, considering the principle of law, it is necessary that the FIR be registered and a full-fledged investigation be undertaken. The matter cannot be closed on basis of a report of PE.”

The Court held that the ACB was legally obligated to register an FIR against the concerned bank officials under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, it declined to transfer the investigation to the CBI, observing that since the complaint had been lodged with the ACB and the preliminary enquiry had also been conducted by it, the ACB should carry out the investigation.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry and the recommendation to prosecute the complainant under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code, and directed the ACB to register an FIR and undertake a full-fledged, fair and impartial investigation into the allegations.

The Court clarified that its observations should not prejudice any party, including the proposed accused, and that the investigating agency remained free to investigate the matter and submit its findings in accordance with law.