2004 (3) TMI 770 - SC - Indian Laws

First Information Report, registered the crime under Sections 420, 201 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Whether the High Court was justified in quashing criminal proceedings based on the police officer who lodged the FIR also conducting the investigation - Inspector of Police lodged an FIR against the respondent-accused for corrupt practices - HELD THAT - We have no hesitation in holding that the approach of the High Court is erroneous and its conclusion legally unsustainable. There is nothing in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which precluded the appellant (Inspector of Police, Vigilance) from taking up the investigation. The fact that the said police officer prepared the FIR on the basis of the information received by him and registered the suspected crime does not, in our view, disqualify him from taking up the investigation of the cognizable offence. A suo motu move on the part of the police officer to investigate a cognizable offence impelled by the information received from some sources is not outside the purview of the provisions contained in Sections 154 to 157 of the Code or any other provisions of the Code. The scheme of Sections 154,156 and 157 was clarified thus by Subba Rao, J. speaking for the Court in State of U.P. vs. Bhagwant Kishore 1963 (4) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT . In fact, neither the High Court found nor any argument was addressed to the effect that there is a statutory bar against the police officer who registered the FIR on the basis of the information received taking up the investigation. Though there is no such statutory bar, the premise on which the High Court quashed the proceedings was that the investigation by the same officer who lodged the FIR would prejudice the accused inasmuch as the investigating officer cannot be expected to act fairly and objectively. We find no principle or binding authority to hold that the moment the competent police officer, on the basis of information received, makes out an FIR incorporating his name as the informant, he forfeits his right to investigate. If at all, such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the investigating officer. Viewed from any angle, we see no illegality in the process of investigation set in motion by the Inspector of Police (appellant) and his action in submitting the final report to the Court of Special Judge. In the result the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing criminal proceedings based on the police officer who lodged the FIR also conducting the investigation.

Summary:
The Inspector of Police lodged an FIR against the respondent-accused for corrupt practices under Sections 420, 201 IPC, and Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court quashed the proceedings citing bias concerns. The Supreme Court held that there is no legal bar for the police officer who registered the FIR to investigate the case. The Court emphasized that bias should be proven for investigation to be challenged. Referring to previous cases, the Court distinguished situations where the investigating officer was also the informant, highlighting the need for objectivity. The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning and reinstated the investigation by the Inspector of Police. The Court did not address the jurisdiction issue raised post-hearing, as it was not raised earlier by the accused. Ultimately, the High Court's decision was overturned, and the appeal was allowed without costs.