Title : This case provides for the unjustifiable quashing of case by the High Courts and provides for the ground on which the police can investigate an offence.

 Case Name: State Of Haryana And Ors. V Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors.

 Citation: 1992 AIR  604

 Court : Supreme Court Of India

  Bench: Justice S. Rathinavel Pandian, Justice K. Jayachandra

  Decided On: 21/11/1990

     Case Laws:

·   R.P.  Kapur  v. The State of Punjab, [1960] 3  SCR  38

·   Amar Nath v. State of Haryana,  [1977]  4 SCC 137

·   Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, [1977] 4  SCC 551

·   State of Bihar and  Anr.  v.J.A.C. Saldanha  and Ors., [1980] 1 SCC 554

·   Municipal  Corporation of  Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala and Ors.,  [1983]  1 SCC  9

·   State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Swapan  Kumar  Guha and Ors., [1982] 3 SCR 12

·   Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna  Shivalingappa Konjalgi 266 &  Ors., [1976] Supp. SCR 123

·   Pratibha Rani v. Suraj  Kumar and Anr., [1985] 2 SCC 370

·   State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and Ors., [1988] 4 SCC 655

·   Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam  Mondekar and Anr., [1958] SCR 1

Brief facts of the case

1. The respondent of this case Bhajan Lal was the Minister  and  subsequently Chief  Minister  of  Haryana State.

2. On 12.11.1987 he became the Union Minister and a complaint was filed before the chief Minister of Haryana that the respondent have illegally acquired in the name of his close family members the worth of the property is around 1 crore.

3. He have done so by misusing his power and authority and position  by undervaluing the real value of the property

4. All the transactions regarding the property were of benami in nature

5. A case in this regard was filed in the police station by the Chief Minister’s Secretariat the superintendent of police initiated an investigation.

6. Mr. Bhajanlal  filed a  Writ  Petition before  the  High Court for a direction to quash  the  First Information  Report and for restraining the appellants  from proceeding  further with the investigation.

7. High court quashed  the  entire criminal proceedings holding stating   that  the allegations  did  not constitute a  cognizable  offence  for commencing lawful investigation.

8. The aggrieved parties through special leave petition filed a appeal in the Supreme Court  contending  that  the allegations contained in  the  complaint, either individually or collectively, constituted a  cognizable offence warranting and it should not be quashed by the high Court.

Contentions of the petitioner

·   They pleaded in the court that the suit is maintainable as per the Section 154(1) Cr. P.C. and it should not be taken into account as a cognizable offence.

·   Accumulation of illegal assets by a political leader amounts to a serious offence.

·   Political leaders by this are playing with the sentiments of the general public.

·   And it also rooting seeds of corruption in the country.

·   Hence they pleaded that this should be fairly investigated by the proper authorities.

 Contentions of the Respondent

·   The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended   that  on account  of the deep rooted political animosity and  rivalry entertained  by  the the Chief Minister.

·   The complaint is being used against him to tarnish his image in front of the public

·   All the allegations that were filed against him were of  false  and scurrilous in nature.

·   Hence because they lack the truthfulness they needed to be quashed.

Issue

·   Whether the complaint that has been quashed by the High Court is justifiable or not?

·   Whether the investigation against the respondent should take place or not?

Ratio

·   The judgment of the High Court  quashing  the First  Information Report is set aside as not being  legally and factually sustainable in law

·   However, the  commencement as well as the entire investigation, if any, so far done  is quashed on the ground that the third appellant (SHO) is  not clothed with valid legal authority to take up the investigation and proceed with the same within the meaning of Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

·   The observations made by the high court are based on historical anecdote and hence not acceptable

·   If the police gets any information regarding the cognizable offence then they should immediately start working on that.

·   Non cognizable offence can only investigated on the order of the magistrate.

·   The core of the Sections 156, 157 and 159 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that if a police officer has reason to  suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, he  must either proceed with the investigation or cause an investigation to be proceeded with by his subordinate.

·   When there is no sufficient ground for entering the complaint then the police officers can dispense off such case

·   The investigation by the police is based on these two points "reason to suspect the commission of an  offence" used in Section 154(1) Cr. P.C and on the ground that the  police officer should subjectively satisfy  himself as to whether there is sufficient ground for entering on  an investigation  even before he starts an  investigation  into the  facts  and circumstances of the  case  as  contemplated under  clause  (b) of the proviso to Section 157(1)  of  the Code.

·   The view of the High Court that the non-filing of  a written  statement  by a competent authority  of  the  State Government  by  way of reply to the averments  in  the  Writ Petition was serious flaw on the part of the appellants.

·   where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable  offence  but constitute  only  a  non-cognizable offence,  no investigation is permitted by a police  officer without  an  order  of a Magistrate  as  contemplated  under Section 155(2) of the Code.

·   The dominant purpose of registration of  the  case and  the intended follow up action are only  to  investigate the  allegations  and present a case before  the  Court.

·   If sufficient  evidence  in support of  those  allegations  are collected  but not to make a character assassination of  the person complained against.

·   The main object of Section 5A is to  protect  the public servant against harassment and victimisation.

Held

The court order the investigation of only those offences which are falling under section 5 of prevention of corruption Act. The decision of quashing the case in the High Court is justifiable.