Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

By sending the complaint to the respondent himself the petitioner had satisfied the requirement under 154 (3) Cr.P.C. Further, by virtue of the hierarchy and procedure for handling complaints set out in the Vigilance manual, Section 154 (3) has no application in the present situation. The position of the accused, the scale of corruption and the contact of the respondent detailed below all makes this is an exceptional and rarest of rare case were this Court must intervene to ensure accountability even for occupying the highest positions of power and to maintain probity in public life which is essential for the sustenance of power, democracy. In this context it is to be noted that the respondent completed the preliminary enquriy on the complaint received on 13.06.2018 only after the petitioner moved this Court.
Indeed, it is the responsibility of the respondent to register an FIR, take statements of witnesses, search and seize relevant documents and collect all available evidence to substantiate the allegations. During the course of the arguments, the respondent has sought to shift the burden on the petitioner, to present a water-tight case against the accused at this state, to just register an FIR. This is a complete shirking of the responsibility cast upon the police officers, under Section 154 Cr.P.C, to immediately register an FIR and investigate the commission of cognizable offences.
Conduct of the Preliminary Enquiry Reference was made to Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 stating that under Section 154 Cr.P.C it is mandatory that an FIR be registered on receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held the possibility that a preliminary enquiry may be made close in corruption cases but only if the information does not disclosed a cognizable offence. Upon the completion of enquiry (within 15 days unless in exceptional cases by giving adequate reasons it may be extended to six weeks), an FIR must be registered or in cases were complaint it closed a copy of the closure report should be furnished to the informant within a weeks time. In this case the respondent had not communicated to the petitioner as to why a preliminary enquiry was instead of straight away registering in an FIR. The respondent registered a preliminary enquiry on 22.06.2018 with a delay of 10 days the enquiry is alleged to have been completed on 28.08.2018 with a delay of 78 days after the receipt of the complaint and 6 days after the petitioner filed this petition. Despite the completion of the enquiry the respondent had not communicated the result of the same to the petitioner and thus the respondent has completely and without any regard to the law violated in every step of the enquiry set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
35. Accordingly, we answer the references in the following manner, while giving certain directions:
(i) Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked in all circumstances.
(ii) It is not an alternative remedy to Section 156(30 Cr.P.C but a repository of inherent power.
(iii) The normal course of remedy on a failure or refusal to record the information is Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after due compliance of Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.
(iv) A petition can be filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court only after the completion of 15 days from the date of receipt of the information by the Station House Officer. The Registry shall not receive any petition before the expiry of 15 days aforesaid.