Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to quashing of FIR under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
• This judgment was delivered by Justice SR Pandian and Justice K Jayachandra Reddy. 

Facts 

• Ch. Bhajan Lal, a former Chief Minister and Union Minister of Haryana, was the subject of a complaint alleging corrupt accumulation of properties worth crores of rupees. 
• The Chief Minister's Secretariat forwarded the complaint to the Director General of Police, who directed the Superintendent of Police to investigate. 
• The SHO (Station House Officer) registered a case under Section 161 and 165 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). 
• Bhajan Lal filed a writ petition in the High Court to quash the First Information Report (FIR) and stop the investigation. 
• The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, finding the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence. 
• The State of Haryana appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision.

Issues Involved  

• Whether the allegations in the complaint constitute a cognizable offence warranting investigation? 
• Whether the SHO had legal authority to investigate the case under Section 5A (1) of the PCA? 
• When and under what circumstances courts can exercise extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950 or Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings? 
• The scope and limits of judicial interference in police investigations of cognizable offences? 

Observation  

• On Investigation and Cognizable offences the Court laid down the following: 
  • The allegations in the complaint clearly constitute a cognizable offence 
  • Police have a mandatory duty to register a case if information discloses a cognizable offence 
  • Investigation of cognizable offences is exclusively within police domain 
• On quashing criminal proceedings the Court held that: 
  • The Court provided seven illustrations where criminal proceedings could be quashed: 
    • where the allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR) or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 
    • where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 
    • where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 
    • 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. 
    • where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 
    • where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 
    • where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 
• On investigation Authority the Court: 
  • Quashed the investigation because the SHO lacked legal authority under Section 5A (1) of PCA. 
  • Highlighted that investigation by designated officers is the rule, and by lower-ranked officers is an exception. 
  • Mandated that permission to investigate by lower-ranked officers must be with specific, recorded reasons. 
• The Supreme Court in this case:  
  • Set aside the High Court's judgment 
  • Quashed the investigation because the SHO lacked legal authority to investigate under the Prevention of Corruption Act 
  • Noted the SP's "over-enthusiasm" in directing the investigation without proper justification 

Conclusion 

This is the landmark judgment which is invoked by the Supreme Court in several cases where FIR has to be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC. This judgment laid down the circumstances where an FIR can be quashed.