9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 966 - SC - Indian LawsQuashing of FIR filled under sec 482 of crpc-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-CBI Manual 2005 - The Appellant registered a case against the Respondent (Revenue officer) U/s 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Respondent had challenged the said FIR registered against him and sought for quashing of the same. - HC quashed the FIR. HELD THAT Not complying with the mandatory procedure Under Section 154 does not vitiate the registration of FIR the clarification made by this Court regarding the provisions of Section 154, 156 and 157, Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi 1963 (4) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT upon which rightly placed reliance in justification of the procedure followed by CBI regarding the registration of FIR the same is traceable to the procedure laid down in the Crime Manual 2005, which has been prepared by the CBI for registration of cases under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. Therefore, non compliance of the mandatory provisions Under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure if the case is registered on the basis of the information received suo-motu after specifying that the information reveals prima facie cognizable offence against the Respondent herein and found that the matter is fit for investigation to be taken by the Appellant herein, in not following the provisions of Section 154 does not vitiate the registration of FIR and further proceedings in the matter of registration. further there is no need for this Court to await the larger Bench decision on the issue in the case in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. 2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is hereby set aside. It is open for the CBI to proceed further in the matter to conduct investigation and proceed in accordance with law against the Respondent.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the High Court's decision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Legality of FIR registration based on recorded information under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Interpretation of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in conjunction with Sections 156 and 157. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: I) Justification of the High Court's Decision under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure: The High Court quashed the FIR on the grounds that the mandatory requirement of providing a copy of the FIR to the informant under Section 154(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not met. The Supreme Court examined whether this procedural lapse justified quashing the FIR. The Court emphasized that the non-supply of the FIR copy did not cause any prejudice to the respondent, as the informant did not raise any grievance regarding this issue. The Court reiterated that procedural lapses should not vitiate proceedings unless they result in actual prejudice or injustice. II) Legality of FIR Registration Based on Recorded Information under Section 154(1), Code of Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court analyzed whether the FIR, based on recorded information disclosing a cognizable offense, was permissible under Section 154(1) for the purposes of investigation under Sections 156 and 157. The Court referred to the CBI (Crime) Manual of 2005, which outlines the procedure for registering complaints and source information. The Court highlighted that the manual's provisions, including the collection and verification of source information, are in conformity with the observations made in the Vineet Narain case. The Court concluded that the FIR registration procedure, as followed by the CBI, was valid and did not require strict adherence to Section 154's procedural requirements. III) Interpretation of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Conjunction with Sections 156 and 157: The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly interpreted Section 154 with reference to its scope and juxtaposition with Sections 156 and 157. The Court referred to several precedents, including the State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi and Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., to clarify that the provisions of Section 154(2) are directory and not mandatory. The Court emphasized that the intent of the legislature and the context in which the provision is used should guide the interpretation. The Court held that non-compliance with Section 154(2) does not invalidate the FIR or subsequent investigation, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and permitted the CBI to proceed with the investigation. The Court concluded that the procedural lapse of not providing a copy of the FIR to the informant did not vitiate the FIR's registration or the investigation process. The Court emphasized the importance of substantial compliance with procedural requirements and the absence of prejudice to the accused in determining the validity of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
|
