Desirable That FIRs In Corruption Cases Aren't Quashed At Investigation Stage : Supreme Court To High Courts

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court has opined that it is desirable that the High Courts do not quash corruption case FIRs at investigation stage, even if it is suspected that the case has been registered by a new government against officers of the previous government.A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed that if the accused are allowed to go scot-free only on the ground that the action has been taken by the current regime in a malafide manner to "settle scores", criminal justice system will become a casualty. Quashing FIR on the sole ground that it has been registered by the new government to wreak vengeance of the individual therefore is not advisable."This is because, it is difficult to form an opinion conclusively at the stage of reading a first information report that the public servant is either in or not in possession of property disproportionate to the known sources of his/her income. It would all depend on what is ultimately unearthed after the investigation is complete", the bench explained.Hence, the bench said that it is desirable that the High Courts adopt a "hands-off" approach. “Having regard to what we have observed above in paragraph 49 (supra) and to maintain probity in the system of governance as well as to ensure that societal pollutants are weeded out at the earliest, it would be eminently desirable if the high courts maintain a hands-off approach and not quash a first information report pertaining to “corruption” cases, specially at the stage of investigation, even though certain elements of strong-arm tactics of the ruling dispensation might be discernible.” The Apex Court clarified that it does not intend to fetter the high courts from intervening in appropriate cases but sought to remind the latter to be careful, circumspect and cautious in quashing FIRs on malafide grounds. HC Wrong To Quash FIR: State, Complainant Argue The court made the observations in a case challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's order quashing a disproportionate assets case registered in 2020 against Aman Singh, the former Principal Secretary of the former Chief Minister Raman Singh, and his wife Yasmin Singh, who was a consultant when the Raman Singh government was in power.Complaints were lodged against the IRS officer and his wife in 2019 on grounds of corruption and money laundering. This apart, the couple also held assets which are disproportionate to their known sources of income, it was alleged. The current Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel ordered for the complaint to be enquired into by the Economic Offences Wing and consequently, a preliminary inquiry was ordered. Prior to this, Yasmin had moved the High Court questioning the departmental enquiry. On January 16, 2020, the High Court directed the State to refrain from taking any steps to her prejudice. Then, Aman approached the High Court. While the matter was pending, an FIR was registered against the husband-wife duo. In January, 2022, the High Court quashed the FIR. Challenging this judgement, petitions were moved before the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the State, contended that the High Court had committed gross error of law in quashing the FIR, by transgressing the legal bounds. When a FIR could be lodged on the basis of suspicion, the High Court in the present case erred in law in quashing the FIR on the ground that it was based on “probabilities”; the High Court overstepped its limits, he argued. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, assisted by Advocate-on-Record Pranjal Kishore, for the other appellant contended that the High Court clearly applied a wrong test while quashing the FIR. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appearing for the couple, opposed the appeals and contended that the High Court rightly concluded that investigation of the FIR, which did not prima facie disclose commission of any cognizable offence by either of the two. Law Abhors Illicit Intentional Enrichment; Preliminary Enquiry Indispensable: Court The most crucial aspect for Court’s consideration was the extent of the High Courts’ power under Article 226 of the Constitution or section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a FIR under section 13 of the PC Act [criminal misconduct]. Highlighting the menace of corruption and greed, the Court observed that husband-wife duo are ‘public servants’ under the PC Act. The Court noted that the illicit ‘intentional enrichment’ by a public servant during the period of their office is a criminal misconduct. This presumptive finding, the Court said, is based on three aspects: Being a public servant; if at any time during the period of their office, they have been in possession, by their self or through any person on their behalf, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to their known sources of income, they are enjoined to satisfactorily account for the same. ...

Desirable That FIRs In Corruption Cases Aren't Quashed At Investigation Stage : Supreme Court To High Courts

Rintu Mariam Biju

Tags