Court’s Decision
The High Court emphasized the following principles:
- Investigative Authority: Magistrates and Special Courts do not have the authority to interfere with ongoing investigations or question the validity of FIRs during their preliminary stages.
- Judicial Assistance: Courts should limit their role to providing procedural assistance, such as issuing search warrants or letters rogatory, when approached by investigative agencies.
- Validity of FIR: If there is a challenge to the FIR, it must be done under Section 482 CrPC (inherent powers) or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. Lower courts cannot initiate quashing or supervision.
The court also restored the application by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a letter rogatory (judicial assistance to collect evidence from another country).
Facts
- Allegations of Corruption: Rolls Royce, between 2007-2011, allegedly paid illegal commissions of 10-11.3% of contract values to intermediaries, violating terms of purchase orders with Indian Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) like HAL, ONGC, and GAIL.
- Preliminary Enquiry: A CBI source informed that commissions paid by Rolls Royce to intermediary companies (M/s Aashmore Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Infinity) were kickbacks to unknown officials of these PSUs.
- CBI Findings:
- Rolls Royce concealed these payments during subsequent tenders.
- Payments were made to accounts in Singapore, violating anti-corruption protocols.
- CBI Action:
- Registered a First Information Report (FIR) in 2019.
- Sought judicial assistance (letter rogatory) to collect evidence from Singapore-based banks and investigate their officials.
The Special Judge:
- Declined the CBI’s application for a letter rogatory.
- Questioned the FIR’s validity, claiming it lacked evidence of a cognizable offense.
- Referred legal questions to the High Court under Section 395(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Issues
The High Court addressed the following legal questions:
- Can a Magistrate or Special Court question an FIR’s validity or quash it during an investigation?
- Should CBI approach the High Court or Supreme Court to investigate in cases of doubtful offenses?
- Is a Section 395(2) CrPC reference maintainable before filing a chargesheet?
- What is the permissible scope of judicial supervision during investigations?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- CBI’s Stand:
- The FIR was registered after sufficient evidence of a cognizable offense was found.
- Magistrates or Special Courts cannot interfere with the investigative process.
- The application for a letter rogatory was essential to advance the investigation.
- The reference made by the Special Judge was procedurally flawed.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The FIR was based on vague and speculative information.
- The CBI should seek prior judicial approval when evidence for an FIR is weak.
- The Special Judge acted within their powers in declining the letter rogatory and referring legal queries.
Analysis of the Law
- Registration of FIRs:
- Mandatory: If reasonable suspicion exists of a cognizable offense (as per Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh).
- A police officer or investigative agency need not verify the truthfulness of the information before registering the FIR (CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh).
- An FIR serves as the starting point for an investigation, not a conclusive document.
- Judicial Role During Investigations:
- Courts cannot interfere with investigations unless extraordinary circumstances arise (Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja).
- The power to quash an FIR lies only with High Courts or the Supreme Court under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227.
- Validity of Section 395(2) Reference:
- A reference to the High Court is valid only if a case is pending and the referred questions arise directly from it.
- In this case, the application for a letter rogatory was dismissed before the reference, rendering it moot.
Precedent Analysis
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal:
- FIRs must disclose a cognizable offense for investigation. Otherwise, procedures under Section 155 CrPC apply for non-cognizable offenses.
- Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal:
- Lower courts lack inherent powers to review or quash their orders.
- Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra:
- Courts should allow investigations to proceed without interference and avoid premature assessments of an FIR’s merit.
Court’s Reasoning
- Role of Magistrates:
- Magistrates and Special Courts are limited to ensuring procedural fairness (e.g., authorizing search warrants).
- They must not question FIR validity during an investigation (Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor).
- CBI’s Discretion:
- The CBI, as an investigative agency, may register FIRs if prima facie evidence supports reasonable suspicion of a cognizable offense. Judicial permission is not required.
- Reference Validity:
- The Special Court’s reference was invalid as the case from which it arose (application for letter rogatory) was dismissed. Section 395(2) CrPC references must pertain to pending cases.
Conclusion
- The Special Judge’s order questioning the FIR and rejecting the letter rogatory application was procedurally flawed and set aside.
- The application for letter rogatory was restored to enable further investigation.
- The High Court provided concise answers to the referred legal questions, emphasizing the established principles of non-interference during investigations.
Implications
- For Investigative Agencies:
- Reinforces their autonomy to conduct investigations without judicial interference.
- Reiterates the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under CrPC.
- For Courts:
- Clarifies their limited role during investigations to procedural oversight and assistance.
- Emphasizes that FIR validity can only be challenged through designated legal provisions.