Constitutional Court Can Direct CBI To Register Case Despite Its Decision To Close Preliminary Enquiry

Case: National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises vs Union of India

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna

Case No.: WP(C) 229 of 2014

Court Observation: In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, a three-judge Bench of this Court, while monitoring an investigation in a matter of national importance, had elaborated on the duty of the CBI to convert a preliminary enquiry into a regular case, once a prima facie case involving the commission of a cognizable offence is evinced. Justice R M Lodha, speaking on behalf of the Court, had also remarked on the nature of the powers of the constitutional court, while monitoring an investigation in exceptional matters.

“There is no bar on the constitutional power of this Court to direct the CBI to register a regular case, in spite of its decision to close a preliminary enquiry. Analogously, this Court has directed the police to register an FIR, once a cognizable offence has been disclosed to it. In Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation a two-judge Bench of this Court, has held that this Court has the power to direct the CBI to conduct an investigation in exceptional cases, despite the CBI’s decision to close the preliminary enquiry, even in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction”

“Some of the aforesaid observations of the officials of the CBI, who recommended the conversion of the preliminary enquiry into a regular case, satisfy this Court’s conscience for exercising its exceptional powers to direct the CBI to conduct an investigation into the matter. A prima facie case for a cognizable offence, as mandated in para 9.1 of the CBI Manual, has been made out in this case and warrants the registration of a regular case. The registration of a regular case, followed by a full-fledged investigation must be conducted. This Court shall be duly apprised of the status of the investigation.”

[doc id=12056]

Previous Posts

Sec 7 POCSO – Main Ingredient Of Offence Of ‘Sexual Assault’ Is ‘Sexual Intent’ And Not ‘Skin To Skin” Contact: Supreme Court

Restricting ‘Touch’ Or ‘Physical Contact’ Only To ‘Skin To Skin’ Contact Absurd: Supreme Court Reverses Bombay HC’s POCSO Judgment

‘Ambush PILs’ Filed To Preclude Genuine Litigants; Summary Dismissal Of Earlier Article 32 Petition Won’t Operate As Res Judicata: Supreme Court

Right To Be Represented By Counsel Or Agent Of Choice In Disciplinary Proceedings Is Not Absolute: Supreme Court

Low Age Of Rape Victim Is Not Considered As The Only Or Sufficient Factor To Impose Death Sentence: Supreme Court Download Judgement