The Supreme Court on Friday held that a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) is not mandatory in all corruption cases..The Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta further held that there are no fixed parameters for the purpose of requisition of a PE to be conducted. The collection of information which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence to satisfy the investigating officer is enough..Referring to the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Lalita Kumari, the Court held,.“…we hold that the preliminary inquiry warranted in Lalita Kumari is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that the type of preliminary inquiry to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There are no fixed parameters on which such inquiry can be said to be conducted.”.These findings of the Supreme Court come in a judgment arising out of appeals against a decision of the Telangana High Court. In a petition seeking quashing of the chargesheet against an accused officer who was booked for disproportionate assets case, the High Court found that there was no authorization to register the crime and that the informant could not have been the same as the investigating officer..Further, the High Court refused to accept the submissions of the accused, who submitted that there could not have been a chargesheet without a PE. The State of Telangana appealed against the first two findings, whereas the accused officer moved the Apex Court in appeal against the last..In these parallel proceedings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal preferred by the State, while dismissing the appeal of the accused on the point of preliminary enquiry. The Court set aside the order of the High Court to quash the proceedings and remitted the case to the trial court. As regards the question of PE, the Court explained,.“Lalita Kumari, the Court has laid down the cases in which a preliminary inquiry is warranted, more so, to avoid an abuse of the process of law rather than vesting any right in favour of anccused.”.The Court goes on to clarify that the Apex Court had not held that proceedings cannot be initiated without conducting a preliminary enquiry. The Court has, in fact, said that a PE may be conducted in a certain classes of cases, of which corruption is one..Whether or not a preliminary enquiry is necessary in a case would depend on the facts of that instant case, the Court further states. It adds that an enquiry of this nature also does not have any set format. Citing the Lalita Kumari case, the Court says,.“The objective of the same is only to ensure that a criminal investigation process is not initiated on a frivolous and untenable complaint. That is the test laid down in Lalita Kumari..…The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to screen wholly frivolous and motivated complaints, in furtherance of acting fairly and objectively.”.The Court, while rejecting the plea by the accused in this case also said that once the officer entrusted with the responsibility to register the FIR is satisfied with the information disclosed to him by the informant, he can proceed against an accused without a preliminary enquiry. The disclosed information must suggest that a cognizable offence has been committed and the officer must be satisfied with the same, the Court emphasised..The Court thus dismissed the appeal by the accused officer booked in a case for disproportionate assets and remitted the case to the trial court..Advocate Bina Madhavan appeared for the State of Telangana and Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appeared for the accused officer..[Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court on Friday held that a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) is not mandatory in all corruption cases..The Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta further held that there are no fixed parameters for the purpose of requisition of a PE to be conducted. The collection of information which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence to satisfy the investigating officer is enough..Referring to the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Lalita Kumari, the Court held,.“…we hold that the preliminary inquiry warranted in Lalita Kumari is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that the type of preliminary inquiry to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There are no fixed parameters on which such inquiry can be said to be conducted.”.These findings of the Supreme Court come in a judgment arising out of appeals against a decision of the Telangana High Court. In a petition seeking quashing of the chargesheet against an accused officer who was booked for disproportionate assets case, the High Court found that there was no authorization to register the crime and that the informant could not have been the same as the investigating officer..Further, the High Court refused to accept the submissions of the accused, who submitted that there could not have been a chargesheet without a PE. The State of Telangana appealed against the first two findings, whereas the accused officer moved the Apex Court in appeal against the last..In these parallel proceedings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal preferred by the State, while dismissing the appeal of the accused on the point of preliminary enquiry. The Court set aside the order of the High Court to quash the proceedings and remitted the case to the trial court. As regards the question of PE, the Court explained,.“Lalita Kumari, the Court has laid down the cases in which a preliminary inquiry is warranted, more so, to avoid an abuse of the process of law rather than vesting any right in favour of anccused.”.The Court goes on to clarify that the Apex Court had not held that proceedings cannot be initiated without conducting a preliminary enquiry. The Court has, in fact, said that a PE may be conducted in a certain classes of cases, of which corruption is one..Whether or not a preliminary enquiry is necessary in a case would depend on the facts of that instant case, the Court further states. It adds that an enquiry of this nature also does not have any set format. Citing the Lalita Kumari case, the Court says,.“The objective of the same is only to ensure that a criminal investigation process is not initiated on a frivolous and untenable complaint. That is the test laid down in Lalita Kumari..…The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to screen wholly frivolous and motivated complaints, in furtherance of acting fairly and objectively.”.The Court, while rejecting the plea by the accused in this case also said that once the officer entrusted with the responsibility to register the FIR is satisfied with the information disclosed to him by the informant, he can proceed against an accused without a preliminary enquiry. The disclosed information must suggest that a cognizable offence has been committed and the officer must be satisfied with the same, the Court emphasised..The Court thus dismissed the appeal by the accused officer booked in a case for disproportionate assets and remitted the case to the trial court..Advocate Bina Madhavan appeared for the State of Telangana and Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appeared for the accused officer..[Read Judgment]
