2018 (3) TMI 1936 - HC - Indian Laws

Search and seizure - validity of unearthing acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known source of income and collecting documents - petitioner was taken to ACB Headquarters without furnishing him grounds of arrest and sans recording reasons - offence under Sections 7 8 9 10 12 13(1)(a)(c) (d) read with 13(2) and 14 of the P.C. Act - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The case in hand involves a senior bureaucrat of the State and therefore the learned counsel espousing his cause has endeavoured to articulate his submissions with full gusto and rhetorics. Likewise State too has locked the horns with full vehemence to defend its impugned actions. However concern of the Court is to examine legality and propriety of the impugned proceedings on the touchstone of inherent powers of this Court uninfluenced by the status of an individual. In our democratic polity where rule of law prevails no individual howsoever highly placed he may be can claim immunity much less absolute immunity from the law and every individual citizen is always under law - If the facts and circumstances of the case leading to prosecution of the petitioner for various offences under the P.C. Act are meticulously scrutinized then it would ipso facto reveal that the concern of the ACB was to unearth alleged large scale corruption in Mines Department upon receipt of information by an Inspector of the Department in this behalf. When an information discloses commission of cognizable offence registration of FIR is mandatory and it is only in exceptional cases for limited purpose preliminary inquiry can be conducted by the police/investigating agency - Undeniably the information received by the Inspector of ACB in the matter purportedly unearthed large scale corruption in Mines Department showing involvement of many officials of department and a senior officer of administration per se delay 2-3 days cannot be categorized as abnormal. Viewed from any angle the material available on record if objectively scrutinized at this juncture when after completion of investigation charge-sheet in the matter has been filed while taking note of the submissions made on behalf of petitioner I am unable to subscribe the view that inherent power is to be exercised in the matter to give effect to any order passed under the Code; or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice - no case of misuse of process of law to harass him is made out. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings.
2. Legality of actions taken by ACB without registration of FIR.
3. Compliance with Section 154 Cr.P.C. and related provisions.
4. Validity of preliminary inquiry and investigation.
5. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings:
The petitioner sought the quashing of FIR No.251/15, Charge-sheet No.276/2015, and the entire proceedings in Case No.234/15. The petitioner argued that the actions taken by the ACB were arbitrary and high-handed, conducted without proper authorization or registration of an FIR, thus violating legal procedures. The court examined the validity of these actions and their compliance with legal standards, ultimately rejecting the petition and allowing the trial to proceed.

2. Legality of actions taken by ACB without registration of FIR:
The petitioner contended that the ACB's actions, including search, seizure, and arrest, were conducted without registering an FIR, violating mandatory legal provisions. The court acknowledged that coercive actions were undertaken before the FIR registration but emphasized that the investigation reached its logical conclusion with the submission of the charge-sheet. The court found that the delay in registering the FIR, given the circumstances, did not warrant quashing the proceedings.

3. Compliance with Section 154 Cr.P.C. and related provisions:
The court underscored the mandatory nature of registering an FIR upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offense, as established in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh. The court recognized that the preliminary inquiry in corruption cases is permissible to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offense. Despite the delay in FIR registration, the court concluded that the actions of the ACB were justified given the large-scale corruption involved.

4. Validity of preliminary inquiry and investigation:
The court examined the necessity and scope of preliminary inquiries in corruption cases, referencing the Lalita Kumari judgment. It acknowledged that preliminary inquiries are permissible to ascertain if a cognizable offense is disclosed. The court found that the preliminary inquiry and subsequent actions by the ACB were in line with legal requirements, given the nature of the corruption allegations.

5. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The court evaluated the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings. It reiterated the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, emphasizing that such powers should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases to prevent abuse of the process of law. The court concluded that the material on record did not justify quashing the proceedings, as it would stifle a legitimate prosecution. The petition was rejected, and the trial was allowed to proceed uninfluenced by the court's observations.

In conclusion, the court found that the actions taken by the ACB, despite certain procedural irregularities, were justified given the nature of the corruption allegations. The petition to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings was rejected, allowing the trial to proceed based on the evidence collected during the investigation.