9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was obligated to register a First Information Report (FIR) based on an anonymous complaint. 2. The legality of the appellant's transfer and the alleged mala fide intent behind it. 3. The jurisdiction and procedural adherence of the CBI in conducting preliminary inquiries. Summary: 1. Obligation to Register FIR: The appellant contended that the CBI was obligated to register an FIR and conduct a full-fledged investigation into the anonymous complaint alleging corrupt practices and financial irregularities. The Supreme Court noted that while ordinarily, u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a report relating to a cognizable offense should lead to an FIR, it is not unknown for an investigating officer to carry out a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the truth of the allegations. The Court cited precedents, including *State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi* and *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*, affirming that preliminary inquiries are permissible before registering an FIR, especially in cases involving vague or anonymous complaints. 2. Legality of Transfer: The appellant argued that his transfer was mala fide and a consequence of his complaint and statements made during the inquiry. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant's transfer was on administrative grounds and that the Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed his application challenging the transfer. The Court emphasized that the presence of the appellant at Nagpur was not necessary for the CBI's inquiry, as the CBI has a national network and can reach the appellant if needed. 3. Jurisdiction and Procedural Adherence of CBI: The appellant questioned the CBI's decision not to convert the preliminary inquiry into a regular case. The Supreme Court highlighted that the CBI Manual, approved in *Vineet Narain v. Union of India*, provides for a preliminary inquiry to distinguish between business risks and mala fide conduct. The Court noted that the CBI followed the procedure laid down in the Manual and that the Central Vigilance Commission had endorsed the departmental proceedings against the concerned officers. The Court reiterated that it is not within the province of the court to direct the investigative agency on how to conduct its investigation unless an exceptional case is made out, which was not the case here. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the CBI's decision not to register a regular case and the appellant's transfer. However, the Court set aside the order directing the appellant to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, subject to the observations and directions mentioned.
|
