State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others
"Information disclosing a cognizable offence must be registered and investigated; an FIR may be quashed under Article 226 or Section 482 only sparingly, in illustrative categories such as where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence, are inherently improbable, are barred by law, or are manifestly mala fide."
Issues Before the Court
- (i)
Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could quash an FIR alleging that a former Chief Minister had amassed properties far beyond his known sources of income?
- (ii)
Whether the officer in charge of a police station must register an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence, and what 'reason to suspect' under Section 157 of the Code requires?
- (iii)
Whether the investigation was validly authorised under Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which allowed an officer below the prescribed rank to investigate only on the order of a Superintendent of Police?
Law & Rules Applicable
- (i)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154, 156 and 157 (information in cognizable cases and the police power to investigate) and Section 482 (inherent powers of the High Court), now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- (ii)
Constitution of India, Article 226 (power of the High Courts to issue writs).
- (iii)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5(2) (criminal misconduct) and Section 5A (rank of officers authorised to investigate), together with Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as then in force.
Application to Facts & Circumstances
A complaint made in November 1987 alleged that Ch. Bhajan Lal, a former Chief Minister of Haryana, had used his official position to acquire properties worth crores, many in the names of others. The complaint was sent on to the police, and a Station House Officer registered an FIR under Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the FIR, holding that the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence warranting investigation. The State appealed by special leave.
The Supreme Court held that when information discloses a cognizable offence, the officer in charge has no option but to register it; the reliability or genuineness of the information is not a condition for registration. 'Reason to suspect' under Section 157 means a rational inference, drawn from specific facts in the FIR and the attending circumstances, that a cognizable offence may have been committed; it does not require proof. Read as a whole, the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence, and the High Court was wrong to quash the FIR.
The Court then set out, by way of illustration and not as an exhaustive list, the categories in which the power to quash may be exercised to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice: (1) the allegations, even if accepted in full, make out no offence; (2) they do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying police investigation without a Magistrate's order; (3) the uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected disclose no offence; (4) the allegations disclose only a non-cognizable offence; (5) they are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could find sufficient ground to proceed; (6) an express legal bar prevents the proceedings, or the law provides a specific, efficacious remedy; and (7) the proceeding is manifestly mala fide or maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance.
It added a note of caution: the power to quash is to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection, and the court should not inquire into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations at that stage.
On Section 5A, the order permitting an officer below the prescribed rank to investigate did not disclose any reasons, so the investigation had not been validly authorised.
Conclusion & Ruling
- (i)
The High Court's judgment quashing the FIR was set aside.
- (ii)
The investigation conducted so far was quashed for want of a valid authorisation under Section 5A(1), leaving it open to proceed afresh under a proper order disclosing reasons.
- (iii)
The illustrative categories for quashing are applied by courts across India in petitions under Section 482 of the Code (Section 528 of the BNSS) and Article 226.