Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedState (Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli) v. V. Jayapaul
Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2004 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 426 of 2002); cited as (2004) 5 SCC 223
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 22 March 2004
- Bench
- Justices Ruma Pal and P. Venkatarama Reddi
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 154, 156, 157; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 17; Indian Penal Code — Sections 201, 420, 465, 468
Final Outcome
The High Court's order quashing the proceedings was set aside and the State's appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs (para 14).
Key holdings
- The Code does not bar the officer who prepared and registered the FIR from investigating the cognizable offence (para 3).
- An officer in charge of a police station may start investigation on information or otherwise, including on his own motion on information from sources (para 3).
- Such an investigation can be assailed only on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias, which depends on the facts of each case (para 5).
- Bhagwan Singh and Megha Singh turned on their own facts, where the officer was the target of the offence or the main witness, and lay down no general bar (paras 7, 11).
Brief Facts
On 9 September 1996 an Inspector of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption), Tiruchirapalli, acting on information that the respondent was extracting money from drivers and owners of vehicles during checks and using bogus notice forms, prepared the FIR and registered offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act (para 2). He investigated and filed a charge-sheet under Sections 465 and 468 IPC and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act (para 2). Relying on Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, the Madras High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the officer who registered the case ought not to have investigated it (para 2).
Court's Findings
Nothing in the Code precluded the Inspector from investigating; preparing the FIR on information he received did not disqualify him, and a suo motu move to investigate falls within Sections 154 to 157 (para 3). As held in Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, an officer in charge can start investigation "either on information or otherwise" (para 3). No principle or binding authority holds that an officer who names himself as informant "forfeits his right to investigate" (para 5). Bias depends on the facts of each case, and a broad rule that such investigations are unfair would mean police powers "would be unduly hampered for no good reason" (para 5). In Bhagwan Singh the crime was directed at the Head Constable himself, so his investigation would be "a mere ritual"; those facts differ (para 7). Megha Singh's remark arose while appreciating the Head Constable's evidence and laid down no broad proposition; here the Inspector had no personal knowledge, his role was "that of investigator—pure and simple", and the trial had not begun (para 11). A new objection under Section 17 of the 1988 Act, raised only in written submissions, was not considered (para 13).
Legal Principle
There is no legal bar on a police officer who records the FIR on information he received investigating the case himself. Such an investigation can be challenged only for bias or a real likelihood of bias, judged on the facts of each case, not on a broad presumption of unfairness (paras 3, 5).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709
The remark that the complainant Head Constable should not have investigated was made while appreciating his evidence on the facts of that case; it lays down no broad proposition barring an informant officer from investigating.
- State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore AIR 1964 SC 221
Under Sections 154, 156 and 157 CrPC an officer in charge of a police station can start investigation either on information or otherwise; receipt of information is not a condition precedent.
- Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC 985
Where the bribe offer was made to the Head Constable, who lodged the FIR and investigated, his investigation was a mere ritual and reflected on the credibility of the prosecution; the facts were entirely different.
