Case Commentary:

Charansingh vs The State Of Maharashtra and Ors.

Petitioner: Charan Singh

FACTS
On February 7, 2018, a complaint was filed against the petitioner with the Director General's
office of the Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Bureau, alleging several claims against him and his
brother. The appellant was a member and President of the Katol Municipal Council in Nagpur
District at the time. The police requested that the petitioner produce any relevant papers and
statements as a result of the complainant. The petitioner, who was offended by the notice, filed a
writ petition with the high court. But there, the petitioner was aggrieved and unsatisfied with the
Maharashtra High Court's judgement and decree on November 20, 2020. The court dismissed the
petition and ordered the petitioner to appear before the Nagpur Anti-Corruption Bureau to
provide a statement in an active investigation into property he held, as well as other facts.
Then this case was then brought up in the Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED
● The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not an investigation in the pre-FIR stage is
legal, and to what extent such an investigation is acceptable.
 ● Whether a pre-FIR investigation is admissible or to what extent it can be based on a
grievance against a public official in light of the Supreme Court's judgement in the Lalita
Kumari case?
● Is the aforementioned investigation allowed under the Maharashtra State Anti-Corruption
Manual in this case?

PROVISIONS INVOLVED
● Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - if he or any person on his
behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in
possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary
resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
● Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure - Information in cognizable cases.
● Section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure - Police officer' s power to require
attendance of witnesses.
● Article 20(3) of the constitution of India.
● Article 21 of the constitution of India.
● Condition 16 of state anti-corruption manual
ANALYSIS
The appellant questioned whether the police inspector of the Anti-Corruption Bureau had the
authority to issue the notice and whether there was any statutory influence behind it to induce
anyone to appear, whether the notice was imposed in purported exercise of Section 160, CrPC,
going beyond the purview and ambit of the section because the appellant cannot be said to be a
witness in the case, and whether the notice was issued in purported exercise of Section. During
the hearing in the high court it was further claimed that no FIR had been filed against the
appellant. The state, on the other hand, claimed that the petitioner was just summoned to give his
statement in a preliminary open inquiry. In the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of UP1, it
was also claimed that the high court allowed a search inquiry, with particular emphasis on
paragraphs 89 and 120 of the judgement.
In the apex court it was claimed that the High Court erred by relying on the Lalita Kumari
decision in dismissing the writ petition, and that it should have recognised that the notice's
subject is covered by Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The state, on the other
hand, claimed that the notice was issued in order to extract the appellant's testimony in a
classified open investigation that was conducted in line with Section 13(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The reason for demanding his appearance under the notice is no longer
acceptable because the appellant has partially given himself with some details at the Anti-
Corruption Bureau. There was no infringement of Article 20 (3) because there was no recorded
FIR against the appellant and no allegation against him today. The notice was issued in
conformity with natural justice principles, and Section 160, CrPC was referenced incorrectly

The investigators relied primarily on Chapter IV of the Anti-Corruption Manual Rules for the
first issue, which outlines how the inquiry should be handled, including both private and open
inquiries. The Maharashtra State Anti-corruption & Prohibition Intelligence Bureau Manual of
Instructions, 1968, provides a pretty detailed framework for conducting open investigations. A
separate investigation is allowed under paragraph 14 of the aforementioned Manual, whereas a
"open investigation" is allowed under paragraph 15.When conducting open investigations, the
officer must also follow the previously issued directions. Thus, the Court held that if the
investigation was conducted in accordance with the Maharashtra State Anti-corruption &
Prohibition Intelligence Bureau Manual, it could not be said that it was improper, and that the
police officer in charge of the Anti-corruption Bureau lacked judicial power, authority, or ability
to conduct such an investigation prior to the filing of the FIR.
In the second issue, according to the Court, a document like this cannot be considered a
statement under section 160 or a statement made during an investigation under the CrPC. During
the trial, a statement like this cannot be used against the appellant. The statement of the appellant
and the evidence gathered during the isolated investigation will be utilised solely to satisfy and
determine if an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has
been discovered unless it is regarded to be confessional, in which case it can only be described as
a self-incriminatory statement, which is forbidden in law, such a remark does not and cannot be
said to have a confessional nature.

Regarding the third issue, the Court pointed out that, under section 154's general rule, the police
must file a FIR as soon as they get evidence disclosing a cognizable offence, and no prior inquiry
will be allowed. Buy here The court has also considered the situations/cases in which
preliminary enquiry is permissible/desirable. The categories of cases are as under:
Matrimonial disputes/family disputes, Commercial offences, Medical negligence
casesCorruption cases where there is abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution.

According to the Apex Court, the preliminary inquiry's sole purpose was to evaluate whether the
knowledge revealed any cognizable offences, not to verify the correctness of the material
obtained.That all procedures must be completed in a timely manner, with a seven-day maximum
time restriction. Every piece of information received should be entered in the
General/Station/Daily diary to maintain transparency and minimise manipulation. If the inquiry
results in the complaint being closed, a copy of it, together with the reasons for the closure,
should be sent to the first informant within a week. With all of these considerations in view, the
Court came to the conclusion that conducting such an inquiry prior to filing a FIR is not criminal
in and of itself.As a result, an investigation would be necessary to protect his interests and maybe
prevent further harassment. The Supreme Court saw no basis to overturn the High Court's
decision for the reasons indicated above, and the appeal was dismissed.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of a preliminary investigation, as seen in this case, is to screen out baseless and
intentionally motivated accusations made with the desire to hurt someone. It is crucial in acting
honestly and objectively and not beginning criminal actions prematurely. Even if such inquiries
are made, the court ruled that they should be limited to individuals who have a working
knowledge of the person's business in order to offer prima facie evidence that can subsequently
be utilised to follow the usual law of the land. As a result, if the allegation is found to be false,
the case can be closed without having to go through the complete criminal process and with no
negative impact on the person's social standing. If a cognizable offence is detected, the police
can file a FIR with less tampering and a faster investigation.

The court also established the circumstances under which this preliminary investigation will be
valid, as well as the instructions to be followed in an open investigation. In general, the court
found that preliminary investigations in cases of corruption prior to the filing of a formal
complaint are not only legal but also beneficial.