Summary
Chhattisgarh registered an FIR under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 120B IPC against a former Principal Secretary to the previous Chief Minister and his wife for disproportionate assets; the High Court quashed it as based on 'probabilities' without definite figures. The Supreme Court allowed the State's and complainant's appeals: an FIR need only disclose reason to suspect a cognizable offence, courts must not test the probability of its allegations at the threshold, this FIR identified a check period, lawful income and acquisitions, the later CBI circular could not invalidate it, and the mala fide plea failed for want of pleadings and non-impleadment of the Chief Minister. High Courts should ordinarily keep hands off corruption FIRs at the investigation stage.
Issues
- Whether an FIR under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be quashed on the ground that it is based on probabilities and does not state the quantum of disproportionate assets with definite facts and figures.
- Whether and to what extent a High Court may quash a corruption FIR at the investigation stage on the ground of political mala fide.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) and the Explanations, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988A public servant who intentionally enriches himself illicitly commits criminal misconduct, and possession of resources disproportionate to known sources of income which he cannot satisfactorily account for raises the presumption; the FIR, registered after a preliminary inquiry of the kind contemplated in Lalita Kumari, disclosed these ingredients and the exact figures are for the investigation and police report. (¶¶ 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56)
- Sections 154, 156 and 482 read with Article 226, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Following Tapan Kumar Singh, Bhajan Lal and Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri, an FIR may be registered on suspicion and quashing is for the rarest cases; the High Court impermissibly sieved the complaint through the finest gauze and conducted a mini-trial on reliability. (¶¶ 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63)
Held
- The FIR, though it could have been better drafted, set out the 2004 to 2018 check period, salaries and property sales, acquisitions with prices, suspicious deposits of over Rs. 1.77 crores into the wife's account and a finding that expenditure was immensely disproportionate to lawful income of about Rs. 3.33 crores; any arithmetical error or misdescription could be pointed out by joining the investigation. The CBI Circular of November 2020 was issued after the FIR and adopted by the State only in April 2021, so it cannot invalidate the FIR. (¶¶ 54, 55, 56, 64, 65)
- The pleadings of mala fide were vague, the Chief Minister against whom it was alleged was not impleaded as required by P.P. Sharma, and in a disproportionate-assets case the material collected in investigation is decisive so that mala fide is of secondary importance; a prosecution founded on adequate evidence is not vitiated by political overtones. High Courts should maintain a hands-off approach to corruption FIRs at the investigation stage, intervening only where the record reveals no material for even a reasonable suspicion and nothing but mala fide underlies the investigation. (¶¶ 49, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75)
Result
Appeals allowed with parties bearing their own costs; Chhattisgarh High Court judgment dated 10.01.2022 quashing FIR No. 9/2020 set aside and the writ petitions dismissed; interim protection continued for three weeks for the accused to pursue their remedies; observations confined to disposal of the appeals and investigation to proceed in accordance with law.