Preliminary Enquiry By CBI In Corruption Cases Not Mandatory; Accused Cannot Demand It As Of Right: Supreme Court

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:5 mins read

Preliminary Enquiry By CBI In Corruption Cases Not Mandatory; Accused Cannot Demand It As Of Right

Case: Central Bureau of Investigation vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna

Case no.: CrA 1045 of 2021

Court Observation: “In case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a “source information” discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry, where the officer is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence”

“An FIR will not stand vitiated because a Preliminary Enquiry has not been conducted”

“In view of the above discussion, we hold that since the institution of a Preliminary Enquiry in cases of corruption is not made mandatory before the registration of an FIR under the CrPC, PC Act or even the CBI Manual, for this Court to issue a direction to that effect will be tantamount to stepping into the legislative domain. Hence, we hold that in case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a “source information” under Chapter 8, discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry, where the officer is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence”

“This has been acknowledged by the decisions of this Court in P Sirajuddin (supra), Lalita Kumari (supra) and Charansingh (supra). Even in Vinod Dua (supra), this Court noted that “[a]s a matter of fact, the accepted norm – be it in the form of CBI Manual or like instruments is to insist on a preliminary inquiry”. The registration of a Regular Case can have disastrous consequences for the career of an officer if the allegations ultimately turn out to be false. In a Preliminary Enquiry, the CBI is allowed access to documentary records and speak to persons just as they would in an investigation, which entails that information gathered can be used at the investigation stage as well.

Hence, conducting a Preliminary Enquiry would not take away from the ultimate goal of prosecuting accused persons in a timely manner. However, we once again clarify that if the CBI chooses not to hold a Preliminary Enquiry, the accused cannot demand it as a matter of right. As clarified by this Court in Management (supra), the purpose of Lalita Kumari (supra) noting that a Preliminary Enquiry is valuable in corruption cases was not to vest a right in the accused but to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of law in order to target public servants”

[doc id=11115]

Previous Posts

Anticipatory Bail Granted Ignoring Material Aspects, Nature & Gravity Of Offence Liable To Be Cancelled: Supreme Court

Employer Cannot Be Compelled To Appoint A Candidate Merely Because He Made Truthful Declaration Regarding Criminal Cases: Supreme Court

Section 138 NI Act – Summons To Directors Justified If Complaint Avers That They Were In Charge & Responsible For Conduct Of Business Of Company: Supreme Court

Specific Performance – ‘Readiness’ & ‘Willingness’ Can’t Be Proved For the First Time Before HC Through Affidavit Without Amending Pleadings: Supreme Court

Part-Time Employees Can’t Seek Regularization As Matter Of Right Contrary To Govt’s Regularization Policy: Supreme Court