2016 (2) TMI 1366 - HC - Indian Laws

Preliminary Investigation - Whether conversation of the accused recorded in support of the allegation for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior to registration of FIR amounts to preliminary enquiry or investigation? HELD THAT - The registration of FIR is sine-quo-non for proceeding with the investigation of a case, otherwise investigation becomes illegal and is in violation of mandatory provision of Section 154 as held by Division Bench ruling of this Court in Sri Girishchandra and Another vs. State of Karnataka 2013 (2) TMI 928 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . Coming to the case on hand, on the showing of the FIR itself, the Contractor approaches the IO on 26.03.2013 with the allegation that the accused is demanding bribe to get an indent for Transformer. Though the information divulged by the contractor discloses a cognizable offence without registering the case on the said information as mandated by Section 154 of Cr.P.C., IO hands over the voice recorder to him. It is only on 28.03.2013, when the contractor comes back with the recorded conversation of bribe demand, he receives a written complaint and registers the case and thereafter proceeds with entrustment mahazar and Trap. By necessary implication in this case, the investigation commenced prior to registration of the case. Had if the IO immediately after receiving the information on 26.03.2013 had followed the procedure under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. thereby register the FIR and used his strategies for recording the conversation, by using the electric device, then the accused had no case to seek indulgence of this Court at the crime stage - The case of the petitioner shall succeed on two counts that (1) IO omitted to comply with the provisions of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., immediately after receiving information from the contractor on 26.03.2013, (2) The material collected before registration of the case now made to blend with the trap mahazar, subsequent to registration of the FIR vitiates entire investigation. The illegality noticed being abuse of process of law calls for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether conversation of the accused recorded prior to registration of FIR amounts to preliminary enquiry or investigation?

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Junior Engineer/Section Officer, was accused of demanding illegal gratification from a Contractor for allotting an indent for transformers. The Contractor approached Lokayukta Police, and a voice recorder was handed over to record the conversation. The accused was trapped while receiving tainted currency notes, and a FIR was registered. The petitioner argued that the FIR based on the recorded conversation was illegal and against the mandatory requirement of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner claimed there was no demand or acceptance of illegal gratification, and the proceedings were vitiated as the investigation started before the FIR was registered.

2. The Special Public Prosecutor contended that the investigation was conducted as per guidelines, and the evidence collected, including the recorded conversation and seized bribe money, justified the continuation of the investigation. The prosecutor cited the relevance of contemporaneous dialogue during trap mahazar as per the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner's argument was based on the premise that the investigation commenced before the FIR, violating the legal procedure.

3. The Court referred to precedents and highlighted conflicting views on whether recording conversations before FIR registration constituted preliminary enquiry or investigation. The Court noted that the conversation recorded before the FIR was later incorporated into the trap mahazar, raising concerns about the blending of preliminary enquiry with the investigation. The Court emphasized that the FIR is essential for legal investigation, as established in previous judgments.

4. Referring to the Apex Court's definition of investigation, the Court concluded that the actions taken before FIR registration fell under the investigation process. The Court criticized the failure to register the FIR promptly after receiving the initial information and highlighted the blending of pre-FIR events with the trap mahazar as an abuse of legal process. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR registered against the petitioner.

5. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the legality of commencing investigation before FIR registration, emphasizing the importance of following procedural requirements. The Court highlighted the need for FIR as the starting point for a valid investigation and criticized the blending of pre-FIR events with the trap mahazar as an abuse of legal process, leading to the quashing of the FIR in question.