Holding

The CBI may lawfully conduct a preliminary inquiry on an anonymous complaint without registering an FIR or undertaking a full investigation, and the court cannot compel the agency to do so except in exceptional circumstances.

Summary

Shashikant, a railway employee, lodged an anonymous complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging corruption by several officers. The CBI conducted a preliminary inquiry without registering a First Information Report (FIR) and recommended departmental action, which was carried out. Shashikant was later transferred, challenged the transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and subsequently filed a writ petition seeking the CBI to reopen the inquiry, register an FIR and conduct a full investigation. The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, calling it an abuse of process, and the matter reached the Supreme Court on appeal. The Supreme Court held that under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the CBI may conduct a preliminary inquiry on an anonymous complaint without filing an FIR, and it is not obligated to launch a full investigation or comply with the proviso of Section 157(1) of the CrPC; the court may not direct the CBI’s investigative method except in exceptional cases. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the CBI is statutorily required to register an FIR and conduct a full investigation for every anonymous complaint of corruption under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and the Criminal Procedure Code.
Whether a preliminary inquiry without an FIR is permissible under the CBI Manual and the law when the complaint is anonymous.
Whether a writ court can direct the CBI to investigate in a particular manner or order registration of an FIR.
Whether the proviso (b) to Section 157(1) of the CrPC applies to an anonymous complaint.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 157(1) proviso (b)
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946s. 2
Prevention of Corruption Act

Subjects

anonymous complaintpreliminary inquiryFirst Information ReportCBI ManualDelhi Special Police Establishment ActCriminal Procedure Codecourt interferencedepartmental proceedingstransfer grievancewrit petition

Judgment

·A SHASHIKANT
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 7, 2006

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. 1946;

Section 2-Anonymous complaint alleging corruption on the part of
C some public servants, employees of Union of India-Scope and extent of
enquiry by CBI-Held, CBI manual has to be followed.

The question involved in the instant appeal was whether it was obligatory
on the part of the Central Bureau of Investigation to lodge First Information
D Report and carry out a full-fledged investigation about the truthfulness or
otherwise of the allegations made in each and every anonymous complaint.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Delhi Special Police Esta,blishment Act, 1946, indisputably
E applies in regard to charges of corruption made against the employees of Union
oflndia. (478-B, F]

Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., (1998] 1 SCC 226,
referred to.
1.2. Registration of a case is a sine qua non for starting investigation.
F (483-A)
Mohindro v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 581, relied upon.
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335,
this Court referred to P. Sirajuddin etc. v. State of Madras etc. (1970] 1 SCC
595 and The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, (1964) 3 SCR
G 71, referred to.
1.3. That since only an anonymous complaint was made it was evidently
within the province of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to commence
a preliminary inquiry. The procedure laid down in the CBI Manual and in
particular when it was required to inquire into the allegation of the corruption
II 474
SHASHIKANT v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [S.B. SINHA, J.]475

on the part of some public servants, recourse to the provisions of the Manual A
cannot be said to be unfair. (483-B]

1.4. That when a preliminary inquiry was conducted on the basis of an
anonymous complaint without registering a First Information Report, neither
it was necessary to comply with the provision of the proviso (b) appended to
subsection (1) of Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, nor having B
regard to the fact that the identity of Appellant was being unknown, the,
question of complying with the said provisions, even if it be held that the same
was applicable, did not arise. [483-El

The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, (1964] 3 SCR C
71, referred to.

Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., [2001)
7 SCC 536 a.nd Velayudhan v. State of Kera/a, (19981 1 Crimes 510,
distinguished.

2.1. When a statutory authority has a statutory duty to carry out D
inveStigation in accordance with law, it is not within the province of the court
to direct the investigative agency to carry out investigation in a particular
manner. A writ court ordinarily again would not interfere with the functioning
of an investigative agency. Only in exceptional cases, it may do so. (484-B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of
E
2006.

From the Judgment and final Order dated 12.9.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition No.
58812005. F
Sudir Voditel (for A.K. Sanghi) for the Appellant.

Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Abha R. Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, Vimla Sinha and
D.S. Mahra for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Cou~ was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 12.09.2005
passed by a learned Single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A Judicature at Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.558 of 2005
whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by Appellant herein was
dismissed.

Appellant claims himself to be a vigilant employee. He made an
anonymous complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation alleging corrupt
B practices and financial irregularities on the part of some officers of his
department. First respondent No. I stated that on the basis of a source
infonnation, a preliminary inquiry was conducted in which the statements of
various officers were recorded. However, the investigating officer was of the
opinion that it was not necessary to register a First Infonnation Report. It
C recommended for holding of departmental proceedings against the concerned
officers. The said recommendation found favour with the higher officers. The
opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission was also obtained.

It is stated that pursuant to or in furtherance of the said recommendation,
the Railway Administration initiated departmental proceedings against the
D concerned officers, namely, S/Shri Shyam Sunder, U.J. Dave, R.T. Pali and
Ganga Prasad Sahu and imposed different penalties on them. The Railway
Board thereafter by letters dated 06.12.2005 and 22.02.2006 advised the Central
Vigilance Commission as regards imposition of penalties upon the said officers
and closure of cases against them.

E Appellant, however, in the meanwhile, was transferred by an order
dated 20.05.2005. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
contending that the said order of transfer was mala fide and being an outcome
of his complaint and statements made in the inquiry conducted by the first
respondent. By an order dated 17.08.2005, the application filed by Appellant
F was dismissed.

A writ petition was filed by Appellant, inter alia, praying for the following
reliefs:

"(i) direct the respondent no.I to reopen the Preliminary Inquiry
No.PE/4A/2004 and submit a report in accordance with law after
G a detailed inquiry in the matter to the Competent Court.
(ii) direct the respondent no. I to register the inquiries for offences
against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 for excess purchases and
commission of fraud to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and ·;
Amravati Municipal Corporation in tenns of octroi amount of Rs.
H
SHASHIKANT v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [S.B. SINHA, J.) 477

34 lakhs and for duping the respondent nos. 6 and 7. A
(fu) direct the respondent no. l to register inquiry for offences in
respect of excess purchases of Amla.
(iv) direct the respondent no. I to receive the complaints of the
petitioner in respect of all contracts past and present in tenns of
excess payment in the Nagpur Store and direct the respondent B
nos.2 to 5 to provide access to all records & necessary documents
to the petitioner for filing the complaints.
(v) direct the respondent no. 2 to reconsider the Order dated 20.5.05
passed by the Chief Personnel Officer (Signal &
Telecommunication), Central Railway in view of the disclosures C
made by the petitioner and his request for detailed enquiry of the
Store of Nagpur Division of Central Railway.

..
I
' (vi) pending the reconsideration of the transfer of the petitioner by
the respondent no. 2, stay the effect & operation of the Order
passed by the Chief Personnel Officer (S & T), a Subordinate of
the respondent no. 2 dated 20/5/2005."
D

The High Court dismissed the said writ petition, opining :

"If this is an accepted fact, the cognizance of the complaint must
have been taken by the CBI and it is for them to enquire/investigate E
into the matter. The presence of the Petitioner at Nagpur for that
purpose is not necessary. The CBI has a national network and they
can reach the Petitioner, if they feel it necessary.

In respect of the grievance of the Petitioner as to whether the CBI
is not doing their duty, it does not appear to be well founded. As the F
crux of the matter is that since the Petitioner is aggrieved by his
transfer and having failed before the CAT, he has invoked the
extraO\odinary .criminal jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present
Writ Petition. In our opinion, this is nothing but an abuse of process
of Court."
G
Mr. S.S. Voditel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant,
would contend that even in a case where the Investigating Officer may
exercise his option of closing a case, it would be obligatory on his part to
comply with the provisions of Section 157(l)(b) of the Code of Crimi~al
Procedure (for short, 'the Code'). In support of the said contention, our H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A attention has been drawn to some decisions of this Court as also a decision
of the Kerala High Court in Velayudhan v. State of Kera/a, (1998) l Crimes
510].

Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on
behalf of Respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the first
B respondent having been constituted in terms of the Section 2 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short, 'the said Act') and th'!
Central Government having laid down the procedures for conducting
\.---
investigation including the mode and manner in which the preliminary inquiry l
. should be conducted, (known as CBI Manual), which received the approval
C of this Court in Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., [ 1998]
l SCC 226, the impugned judgment cf the High Court should not be interfered
with.

The said Act was enacted to make provision for the constitution of a
special police force in Delhi for the investigation of certain offences in the
D Union territories for the superintendence and administration of the said force
and for extension to other of the powers and jurisdiction of members of the
said force in regard to the investigation of the said offences. Section 2
empowers the Central Government to constitute a special force. Indisputably,
the first respondent has been constituted in terms thereof. Sub section (2) of
Section 2 provides that subject to any orders which the Central Government
E may make in this behalf, members of the said police establishment shall have
throughout any Union territory in relation to the investigation of such offences
and arrest of persons concerned in such offences, alt the powers, duties,
privileges and liabilities which police officers of that Union territory have in
connection with the investigation of offences committed therein. The said Act
F indisputably applies in regard to charges of corruption made against the
employees of Union of India. It is also not disputed that the C.B.I. Manual
was made by the Central Government providing for detailed procedure as
regards the mode and manner in which complaints against public servants are
to be dealt with.

G In Vineet Narain (supra), it was held :

"12. The CBI Manual based on statutory provisions of the CrPC
provides essential guidelines for the CBis functioning. It is imperative
that the CBI adheres scrupulously to the provisions in the Manual in
relation to its investigative functions, like raids, seizure and arrests.
H
SHASHIKANT v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [S.B. SINHA, J.)479

Any deviation from the established procedure should be viewed A
seriously and severe disciplinary action taken against the officials
concerned."

CBI Manual provides for a preliminary inquiry. By reason thereof a
distinction has been made between a preliminary inquiry and a regular case.
A preliminary inquiry in terms of Para 9.1 of the CBI Manual may be converted B
into a regular case as soon as sufficient material becomes available to show
that prima facie there has been commission of a cognizable offence.

Paragraph 9 .2 reads as under :

"While proposing registration of a Preliminary Enquiry pertaining C
to the abuse of official position by a public servant in the matter of
business/commercial decision, the important difference between a
business risk and a mala fide conduct should be kept in mind with
view to ensure that while corrupt public servants are suitably dealt
with the bona fide business/commercial decisions taken by public D
servants in discharge of their duties are not taken up for unnecessary
probe."

Paragraph 9. 7 reads as under :

"As soon as it is decided to register a PE, the SP will take action
to get the PE Registration Report prepared, which will invariably be E
vetted by him and in case of important enquiries even drafted by him.
Registration Report of PE should be written in the PE Registration .
Report Form and not on the form prescribed for recording First
Information Report under Section 154 Cr. PC. Beside the allegations
in brief, the complete details of ·the suspects involved should be F
recorded in the PE Registration Report. In respect of the public servants
found involved in the matter, their Group, the Service (IAS, IRS, IPS
etc.), present designation, scale of pay, present pay and date of
superannuation (if available) should also be mentioned iri the PE.
registration report. The copies of the PE Registration Reports should
be sent to the authorities mentioned in the Annexure 9-A to this G
chapter."

Paragraphs 9.10 and 9.11 provide for collection of documents and
recording of statements during preliminary inquiry, providing for that the
statements of witnesses during preliminary inquiry should be recorded in the H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A saine manner as recorded during investigation of regular cases.

Paragraphs 9 .12 to 9.14 provide for the procedures for converting a
preliminary inquiry into a regular case. Indisputably, the provisions of the
Code are applicable in relation to the inquiries.

B The provisions of the said Act indisputably are applicable to the fact
of the present case. The jurisdiction of the first respondent, in this behalf, is
not in question.

Appellant does not deny or dispute that the first respondent initiated
a preliminary inquiry upon receipt of the complaint. The question which arises
C for consideration is as to whether it was obligatory on the part of the first
respondent to lodge a First Information Report and carry out a full-fledged
investigation about the truthfulness or other~ise of the allegations made in
the said anonymous complaint.

Although ordinarily in terms of Section 154 of the Code, when a report
D is received relating to the cognizable offence, a First Information Report
should be lodged, to carry out a preliminary inquiry even under the Code is
not unknown.

When an anonymous complaint is received, no investigating officer
E would initiate investigative process immediately thereupon. It may for good
reasons carry out a preliminary enquiry to find out the truth o; otherwise of
the allegations contained therein.

A three-Judge Bench of this Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, [1964] 3 SCR 71, referring to the provisions of
F Section SA of the Prevention of Corruptior. Act, opined :

" ... Even so the said police officer received a detailed information of
the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused with
necessary particulars, proceeded to the spot of the offence, ascertained
the relevant facts by going throu8h the railway records and submitted
G a report of the said acts. The said acts constituted an investigation
within the meaning of the definition of investigation under Section
4(1) ofth7 Code ofCrimindl Procedure as explained by this Court. Ti}e
decisions cited by the learned. counsel for the State in support of his
contentiqn that there was no investigation in the present case are
rather wide off the mark. In In re Nanumuri Anandayya a Division
H
SHASHIKANT v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [S.B. SINHA, J.]481

Bench of the Madras High Court held that an informal enquiry on the A
basis of a vague telegram was not an investigation within the meaning
of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In In re Rangarujulu,

-
... Ramaswami, J. of the Madras High Court described the following three
stages a policeman has to pass in a conspiracy case :

" ...hears something of interest affecting the public security and B
which puts him on the alert; makes discreet enquiries, takes
soundings and sets up informants and is in the second stage of
qui vive or lookout; and finally gathers sufficient information
enabling him to bite upon something definite and that is the
~tage when first information is recorded and when investigation C
starts."

This graphic description of the stages is only a restatement of the
principle that a vague information or an irresponsible rumour would
not in itself constitute information within the meaning of Section l 54
of the Code or the basis for an investigation under Section l 57 D
thereof. In State of Kera/av. MJ. Samuel a Full Bench of the Kerala
High Court ruled that, it can be stated as a general principle that it
is not every piece of information however vague, indefinite and
unauthenticated it may be that should be recorded as the first
information for the sole reason that such information was the first, in
point of time, to be received by the police regarding the commission E
of an offence. The Full Bench also took care to make it clear that
whether or not a statement would constitute the first information
report in a case is a question of fact and would depend upon the
circumstances of that case ... "

Only when a F.I.R. is lodged, the officer in charge of the police station F
statutorily liable to report thereabout to a Magistrate who is empowered to
take cognizance in terms of proviso to Section 157(1) of the Code. Proviso
(b) appended thereto empowers the Investigating Officer not to investigate
where it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground for entering into
an investigation. Sub-section (2) of Section 157 reads as under :
G
"(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the
proviso to sub-section (I), the officer in charge of the police station
shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the
requirements to that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause
(b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A infonnant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State
Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it
to be investigated."

The question, therefore, as to whether an empowered officer who had
made investigation or caused the same to be made in a cognizable offence
B within the meaning of Section 157 of the Code or had not initiated an
investigation on the basis of an information which would not come within the
meaning of Section 154 of the Code is essentially required to be detennined
in the fact situation obtaining in each case.

Yet again in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., [1992]
C Supp. I SCC 335, this Court referred to P. Sirajuddin etc. v. State of Madras
etc., [1970] I SCC 595 and Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (supra) in the following
-
tenns:

"77. !n this connection, it will be appropriate to recall the views
expressed by Mitter, J. in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras in the
D following words: (SCC p. 60 I, para 17)

"Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly
charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious
misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this caseiiand
a first infonnation is lodged against him, there must be some
E suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible
officer. The lodging of such a report against a person specially
one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a
department, even if baseless, would do incakulable hann not
only to the officer in particular but to tlte department he belonged
F to, in general .... The means a<iopted no less than the end to be
achieved must be impeccabie."

78. Mudholkar, J. in a separate judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Bhagwant Kishore Joshi at p. 86 while agreeing with the conclusion
of Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) has expressed his opinion stating:
G (SCR pp. 86-87)

"In the absence of any prohibition in the Code, express or implied, I
am of opinion that it is open to a police officer to make preliminary
enquiries beforr registering an offence and making a full scale
investigation into it."
H
SHASHIKANT v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [S.B. SINHA, J.]483

Thus, registration of a case is a sine qua non for starting investigation A
[See Mohindro v. State of Punjab and Ors., [2001] 9 SCC 581].

Only an anonymous complaint was made in June 2004. Evidently it was
within the province of the first respondent to commence a preliminary inquiry.
The procedure laid down in the CBI Manual and in particular when it was
required to inquire into the allegation of the corruption on the part of some B
public servants, recourse to the provisions of the Manual cannot be said to
be unfair. It did not find any reason to convert the preliminary inquiry into
a regular case. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendation made by
the first respondent, which had received the imprimatur by the Central Vigilance
Commission, departmental proceedings were initiated. The Central Vigilance C'
Commission advised the Railway Board to initiate minor penalty proceedings
against the delinquent officers by a letter dated 04.08.2005.

It is not in dispute that Appellant was directed to be transferred on
administrative grounds by an order dated 20.05.2005. The complaint was
although made by Appellant; but it being anonymous his address was not D'
known. It may be true, initially he having been posted in the store in which
the delinquent officers were also working, his statement had been recorded;
but when a preliminary inquiry was conducted on the basis of an anonymous
complaint without registering a First Information Report, neither it was
necessary to comply with the provision of the proviso (b) appended to sub-
section (1) of Section 157 of the Code, nor having regard to the fact that the E
identity of Appellant was being unknown, the question of complying with the
said provisions, even if it be held that the same was applicable, did not arise.

Strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on a decision
of this Court on Hemani Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation and fl
Anr., [2001] 7 SCC 536, wherein it was held that when an investigation had
been conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chapter 12 of the
Code would apply. There c~n be no dispute as regards the proposition of law
laid down therein. But the said decision cannot be said to have any application
whatsoever in the instant case.
G
In the decision of the Kerala High Court in Velayudhan (supra), P.K.
Balasubramanyan, J. (as His Lordship then was) opined that on objective
assessment on the part of the officer, if he finds that no investigation into
the allegation is needed, he could certainly act in terms of Section 157 of the
Code.
H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A The said decision, however, will have no application in a case of this
nature.

The First Respondent is a statutory authority. It has a statutory duty
to carry out investigation in accordance with law. Ordinarily, it is not within
the province of the court to direct the investigative agency to carry out
B investigation in a particular manner. A writ court ordinarily again would not
interfere with the functioning of an investigative agency. Only in exceptional
cases, it may do so. No such case has been made out by the appellant herein.
The nature of relief prayed for in the writ petition also is beyond the domain
of a writ court save and except, as indicated hereinbefore, an exceptional case
C is made out.

Appellant, inter a/ia, questioned his order of transfer. He moved the
Central Administrative Tribunal. His Original Application was dismissed. He
in the writ petition filed before the High Court, inter alia, questioned the
order of Tribunal. However, now it appears that he has filed another writ
D petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, being Writ
Petition No.2036 of 2006, wherein notice has been directed to be issued and
status quo has been directed to be maintained by a Division Bench of the said
court by an order dated 03.05.2006. The High Court is required to consider
the said writ petition on its own merit.

E So far as the decision of the first respondent herein, not to register a
regular. case so as to take up an investigation into the allegation ag~inst the
concerned officers, is concerned, Appellant may have to pursue his own
remedy keeping in view the fact that the first respondent before this Court
has furnished the details of its findings in the preliminary inquiry as also the
F result of the departmental proceedings initiated against the delinquent officers.

However, that part of the order whereby Appellant had been directed
-
to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- is set aside. Subject to the observations and
directions mentioned hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. However, keeping
in v!~w of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no .
G order as to costs.

B.K. Appeal dismissed.