Supreme Court Restores Corruption FIR: Sanju Rajan Nayar vs. Jayaraj & Anr. (23 April 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 April 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 331

Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale

Can a High Court interfere with an ongoing investigation into corruption charges simply because it believes there is insufficient direct evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Sanju Rajan Nayar vs. Jayaraj & Anr., clarifying the limits of judicial intervention at the FIR stage. This case revolves around a corruption complaint against a police officer, where the High Court had quashed the FIR, a decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court. The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Sanju Rajan Nayar, had a marital dispute with his wife, during which his wife filed a complaint against him for allegedly sexually harassing their minor child. This led to the registration of FIR No. 555/2018 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

During the investigation of the FIR No. 555/2018, the appellant alleged that Respondent No. 2, who was investigating the case, demanded and accepted a bribe. When the demands continued, the appellant brought this to the notice of the Karnataka Human Rights Commission, providing evidence in the form of a pen drive.

Based on this complaint, an FIR No. 63/2021 was registered on 8 December 2021, with the Anti-Corruption Branch, Bengaluru, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The authorities also sanctioned the prosecution of Respondent No. 1, Jairaj, a police inspector.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, in Crl.P.No.606/2022, quashed the FIR No. 63/2021, stating that there was no direct evidence of Respondent No. 1 demanding a bribe. The High Court also noted that the complaint appeared to be a retaliatory action against the police, due to the complaint filed against Respondent No. 2 by his wife.

The Supreme Court, however, found this approach to be legally unsustainable. It noted that the High Court had ventured into an unwarranted inquiry at the stage of quashing the FIR, ignoring the material that had surfaced during the investigation, including a pen drive indicating the respondent’s involvement in the crime.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section deals with the offence of a public servant taking gratification, other than legal remuneration, in respect of an official act.
• Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section grants the High Court inherent powers to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are summarized below:

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant contended that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR.
• The appellant argued that there was sufficient material, including a pen drive, to indicate the involvement of the accused in the alleged corruption.
• The appellant submitted that the High Court should not have conducted a detailed inquiry into the evidence at the stage of quashing the FIR.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that there was no direct evidence of him demanding a bribe.
• The respondent contended that the complaint was retaliatory, filed after he had summoned the complainant to the police station in relation to another case.
• The respondent submitted that he was exonerated in the departmental proceedings, which should have been given due consideration.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, based on its assessment that there was no direct evidence of the accused demanding a bribe.
2. Whether the High Court should have given more weight to the fact that the competent authority had sanctioned the prosecution despite the accused being exonerated in departmental proceedings.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court referred to State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) SCC Suppl.1 335* to emphasize the principles that should guide the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash an FIR. The Court held that the High Court had failed to account for the principles enunciated in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The High Court’s premature assessment of evidence: The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have conducted a detailed inquiry into the evidence at the stage of quashing the FIR.
• The importance of allowing the investigation to proceed: The Court highlighted the need to allow the investigation to proceed to its logical conclusion, especially in cases of corruption.
• The sanction for prosecution: The Court noted that the competent authority had sanctioned prosecution, indicating that there was sufficient material to proceed with the case despite the departmental exoneration.
• The principles enunciated in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.: The Court reiterated that the High Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 sparingly and with caution.

The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the absence of direct evidence was sufficient to quash the FIR. It emphasized that the investigation should be allowed to proceed to uncover the full truth. The Court also clarified that the exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically preclude criminal prosecution, especially when a competent authority has sanctioned it.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The High Court, in our considered view, failed to account for the principles enunciated by this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) SCC Suppl.1 335.”

“It ventured into an inquiry, unwarranted at this stage, holding that there is no direct evidence that the present respondent had demanded any money and that there was no material to proceed against him, completely forgetting, if not ignoring the material which had surfaced during the course of investigation, amongst others, the pendrive, allegedly, indicating his complicity in the crime.”

“We may also observe that it was the pleaded case of the Lokayukta before the High Court that the continuance of the trial was not on the very same evidence as what weighed with the authorities in exonerating the employee in the departmental proceedings. This fact, also appears not to have been considered by the High Court in its correct perspective.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should be cautious while exercising their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash an FIR, especially at the initial stage of investigation.
• The absence of direct evidence is not a sufficient ground to quash an FIR if there is other material indicating the involvement of the accused.
• Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically preclude criminal prosecution, particularly when a competent authority has sanctioned prosecution.
• Investigations into corruption allegations should be allowed to proceed to their logical conclusion to ensure justice and accountability.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restored the FIR. The Court directed that the FIR be taken to its logical end, in accordance with law. The Court also clarified that all questions of fact and law, as well as other pleas raised, were left open for the parties to be agitated before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the principles laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) SCC Suppl.1 335, regarding the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a High Court should not prematurely assess the evidence at the stage of quashing an FIR and should allow the investigation to proceed, especially when there is material indicating the involvement of the accused. The decision also clarifies that departmental exoneration does not preclude criminal prosecution if a competent authority has sanctioned it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and restored the FIR. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have interfered with the investigation at such an early stage, especially when there was material suggesting the respondent’s involvement in the alleged corruption. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of allowing investigations to proceed without undue judicial interference, particularly in cases of corruption, and reaffirms the principles established in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.