Landmark Case Analysis on Preliminary Inquiry before registering FIR: Charan Singh v. State of Maharashtra

The Author, Sparsh Jain is a student of BBA.LLB, Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

Background Facts of the Case:

• The Appellant in the present case was a member  and President of Municipal Council, Katol, Nagpur
• Various allegations were made against him and his brothers that they have accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
• Subsequently, notice was issued upon him by police inspector of Anti-Corruption Bureau to be present before the investigating officer.
• He was asked to give his statement relating to assets owned by him and also furnish documents relating to his property, assets, bank statements, income tax returns.
• However, the Appellant was of the view that Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, had no power to issue the said notice. Also, there is no statutory provision which would compel any governmental body to give statement to the police. It was also submitted that there was no FIR against the appellant. 

Issues Involved:

1.  Whether such an enquiry at the Pre-F.I.R. stage is legally valid and permissible?
   1. Whether the said inquiry is permissible under the Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Manual in the present case.
   2. If such enquiry found to be permissible than  what is the scope of such an enquiry.

Analysis of the Arguments advanced by the Appellant

1. Appellant argued that the police inspector of the Anti-corruption Bureau had no power to issue the said notice and there is no statutory force behind it to compel the presence of anyone.
2. Also, according to Appellant the High Court has materially erred in dismissing the writ petition while placing its reliance on the Lalita Kumari case[1] and that it ought to appreciate that the content of notice shall be hit by Article 20(3)[2] and 21[3] of the Indian Constitution.

Analysis of the Arguments advanced by the Respondent

1. It was argued before the court that the notice was issued to obtain the appellant’s statement in a discreet open inquiry which was in the nature of preliminary inquiry and was done in consonance to Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
2. Also, that there was no violation of Article 20(3) as there was no registered FIR against the appellant and no accusation against him existed then.

The case of Lalita Kumari[4]

The Supreme court in its ruling in the above case, recorded that it is mandatory to register an FIR on receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence. However, the Apex Court also considered the possibility of cases where the  preliminary enquiry is permissible/desirable and certain illustrations were also  carved out in which the preliminary enquiry was held to be permissible/desirable before registering/lodging of an FIR.

The case of P. Sirajuddin[5]

In the above case too, the Supreme Court has expressed the need for a preliminary enquiry before proceeding against public servants.

The scope of Preliminary enquiry

However, in both the above cases, the court has recorded that the scope of preliminary enquiry is not to make out an offence of the information received but merely to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

There is also a flip side to the scope of preliminary enquiry and there are cases where it can be misused in India. The possibility of  fabrication of the evidence and destroying the validity of the complaint cannot be ruled out in a preliminary inquiry in a case where FIR is not registered and the same was observed by the court in the case of Sirajuddin v. Government of Madras.[6] In India, where corrupt practices are a common phenomenon, preliminary enquiry might actually result in the accused of crime getting enough time adjust his/her narrative.

Now, again coming back to analysing the decision of the court in the present case. The multiple rulings of the Indian courts has concluded that the preliminary enquiry may be made in the following cases-

• • Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
  • Commercial offences
  • Medical negligence cases
  • Corruption cases
  • Cases where there is abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution.

Whether statements in the present case by appellant can be said to be confessional in nature?

Statements of such nature as in the present case cannot be said to be confessional in nature, and as and when and/or if such a statement is considered to be confessional, in that case only, it can be said to be a statement which is self-incriminatory.

However, than again such a statement will be impermissible in law so it is of no relevance.

In cases where preliminary enquiry is conducted, and subsequently the accused satisfies the police inspector of anti-corruption bureau of the documents of his income and similar statements relating to his known assets, in that case, no FIR is to be filed.

However, on failure to clarify his/her assets or documents regarding known sources of income, then the FIR will be lodged, and he will be exposed to trial. Therefore, as such, an enquiry would be to safeguard his interest also which may prevent further harassment to him.

Conclusion:

Picture Source : https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*smR6Qt26fhiJQB5LRfkWPw.jpeg