Summary
The Court restored the disproportionate-assets FIR and permitted the CBI investigation to continue. A preliminary inquiry was not mandatory in every corruption case where the information already disclosed a cognizable offence. The High Court improperly treated filed tax returns and asset declarations as proof of their contents and resolved contested financial valuations while quashing the FIR. Those issues required investigation and evidentiary assessment. Territorial jurisdiction, State-consent and Speaker-consent questions were expressly left open.
Issues
- Whether a preliminary inquiry was invariably required before registering a corruption FIR.
- Whether disputed financial declarations and valuations justified quashing this disproportionate-assets FIR.
Provisions considered
- Sections 154(1) and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Disclosure of a cognizable offence permitted direct registration. Quashing jurisdiction did not authorise resolving contested financial evidence as in a trial. (¶¶ 15, 17, 19, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 49)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court exceeded the limits of FIR-quashing review by adjudicating disputed defence material; the separate territorial objection was left open. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 48, 49, 51)
- Section 13(1)(e) and its Explanation, before the 2018 amendment, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Tax returns and declarations did not conclusively establish lawful sources; the disputed sources, values and accounting remained matters for evidentiary determination. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)
Held
- Neither the precedents nor the CBI Manual required a preliminary inquiry in every corruption case. Information already disclosing a cognizable offence could support a regular case directly. Inquiry remained valuable in an appropriate case, but was not an accused’s enforceable entitlement before registration. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- A document’s presence in public records was different from the truth of its contents. The High Court’s detailed recalculation of assets, expenditure and income using contested defence records amounted to an impermissible merits adjudication at the FIR stage. This did not eliminate the recognised exceptional quashing power on unimpeachable material. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
- Tax returns could be relevant evidence but did not themselves authenticate the lawfulness of the income sources. Their value depended on the record and procedural stage. The disputed sources, house valuation and property transactions could not be conclusively resolved on this quashing application. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)
- The CBI accepted that the elevator’s value had been separately double-counted, but correcting that item alone did not destroy the case’s basis. The investigation could continue; the CBI’s assurance that the respondents would be called to explain the disputed heads before its conclusion was recorded. (¶¶ 49, 50)
- Questions concerning territorial jurisdiction, withdrawal or existence of State consent and Speaker consent were expressly reserved without a merits decision. (¶ 51)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings set aside. CBI permitted to continue the investigation; reserved jurisdiction and consent issues left open.