2016 (1) TMI 1473 - HC - Indian Laws

Sustainability of a FIR - FIR not in consonance with the procedure mandated in Section 154 Cr.P.C. - Constraint on use of the CAG report as a document in a criminal proceeding - HELD THAT - There is no statutory provision in any of the Penal laws in respect of which the FIRs are registered reconciling the procedure contemplated in Section 154(1) of the Code. That being so the Lokayuktha Police ought not to have yielded to register the FIRs by blowing away the mandatory procedure. The irregularity/illegality committed in registration of the FIRs without there being any material in the nature of information goes to the very root of the matter which cannot be cured by whatever means. Constraint on use of the CAG report as a document in a criminal proceeding - HELD THAT - In this era of advanced Information Technology with the enablement conferred on the citizen of the country to have easy access to information by way of Right to Information Act 2005 it is unrealistic to presume CAG report as a confidential document till it meets finality in the Parliament or the Legislature. The Code no where contemplates a Police Officer acting under Section 157 of the Code to publish the source of information which drives him to register a suo moto complaint in respect of a cognizable offence. Likewise it is always open to a concerned/aggrieved informant to approach the jurisdictional Police even on suspicion about commission of a cognizable offence to be dealt in accordance with Section 154(1) of the Code. An alert citizen upholding the mission of combat against corruption is certainly laudable. But it shall not be a free style battle. The penal laws under which the alleged offence fall will take over if offence is proved in a court of law. The procedure contemplated by the Code to invoke criminal law into motion being the first step for registration of a criminal case inroading of the procedure laid down by rule of law is not at all permissible. An attempt is made to justify the action of Lokayuktha Police that the case is not registered solely on the report of C.A.G. but also on the independent enquiry conducted by the C.I.D. Police on the direction of the Lokayuktha. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Sustainability of FIRs not in consonance with Section 154 Cr.P.C.
2. Use of the CAG report as a document in a criminal proceeding.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sustainability of FIRs not in consonance with Section 154 Cr.P.C.:

The judgment identifies that the FIRs in question were registered based on a complaint by Jayakumar Hiremath and the CAG report. However, the FIRs did not reflect any oral or written statement by the complainant to the SHO, which is a requirement under Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. The FIRs were not based on the personal knowledge of the complainant as required, and the complaint attached to the FIRs was a complaint submitted to the Lokayuktha under Section 7 of the Lokayuktha Act, not a substantive information to register a criminal case. The court emphasized that for an FIR to be valid, it must be based on a duly signed complaint by the informant or a suo moto report by the police officer, which was not the case here. The court cited the Apex Court's ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, which mandates the registration of FIRs based on credible information. The court concluded that the FIRs were not in consonance with Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C., and thus, their registration was fundamentally flawed.

2. Use of the CAG report as a document in a criminal proceeding:

The judgment elaborates on the nature and use of the CAG report. The CAG, an independent constitutional authority, submits its reports to the President or the Governor, which are then placed before the Parliament or State Legislature and scrutinized by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The court noted that the CAG report is subject to parliamentary debate and scrutiny and is considered the property of the House. The court referenced the Apex Court's ruling in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India, which held that the CAG report is subject to scrutiny by the Parliament and cannot be the sole basis for judicial decisions. The court also referred to judgments from the High Courts of Sikkim and Gauhati, which held that the CAG report is a legislative paper and the property of the House. The court concluded that the CAG report could not be used as a foundation to build a criminal case and should not be part of the investigation. The court emphasized that any information about a cognizable offense must be formally reported to the police, who can then conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering a criminal case.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the FIRs in Crime Nos. 38/2015, 42/2015, 39/2015, 44/2015, 40/2015, 43/2015, 52/2015, 53/2015, 45/2015, 46/2015, 48/2015, 49/2015, 50/2015, 54/2015, and 47/2015, stating that they were not registered based on valid information about a cognizable offense. The court also ruled that the CAG report should not be used against the petitioner in any future actions. All contentions were kept open for future consideration.