CRUX:
Jude Joseph v. Director General of Police and Another WP(C) NO. 1788 OF 2021- In the present case, the Kerala High Court has ordered that FIRs in corruption cases be filed after a preliminary investigation.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
08/06/2021
JUDGE:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.G.ARUN
PARTIES:
Jude Joseph (Petitioner)
Director General of Police and Another(Respondent)
SUMMARY
In the present case, the Kerala High Court has ordered that FIRs in corruption cases be filed after a preliminary investigation.
Brief
The Single Bench ordered that the FIR in corruption cases must be recorded only after preliminary investigation, while dismissing a writ petition seeking the registration of specific corruption accusations.
Background Facts
The writ petition was filed because the charges mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2 complaints were not investigated and no FIR was registered.
The petitioner is employed as a Vehicle Supervisor at the KSRTC's Vizhinjam Depot. The current Managing Director of the KSRTC discovered a scheme involving a high-ranking KSRTC official.
It was alleged that major financial irregularities and misappropriation by the then Finances Manager, K.M.Sreekumar, were discovered during an internal audit of the Corporation's accounts for the years 2012-2015.
The petitioner, who claims to have been pressing thew.p.(c) No.1788 of 2021 corruption issue on his own, filed Exts.P1 and P2 charges alleging that, along with Sri.K.M.Sreekumar, the then Executive Director (Vigilance) Sri.
Sharad Mohammed and a few other officials were also implicated in the embezzlement of government funds. The petitioner requests that the respondents consider and dispose of Exts.P1 and P2 by conducting a proper investigation after the police refused to record a crime based on the complaints.
Submission by Petitioner’s Counsel
While presenting on behalf of the petitioner, Adv M.R. Sarin claimed that the police declined to file a crime based on these complaints. As a result, the petition requested that the respondents evaluate and dispose of the allegations after conducting a thorough inquiry.
He argued that if the commission of a cognizable criminal is disclosed in the complaint, the police must record a FIR, citing the landmark case of Lalita Kumari v State of U.P. [(2014) 4 2 SCC 1].
Court’s Observation and Decision
After reviewing the Apex Court's decision, Justice V.G.Arun noted that corruption cases were mentioned as circumstances where a preliminary investigation might be undertaken before filing a FIR. The Court found that this ruling does not support the petitioner's position because the complaints were filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Furthermore, the Court stated that the petitioner's refusal to charge the authorities accused of wrongdoing weakens the case and works as a barrier to the writ petition being heard.
During the discussions, it was further established that a writ jurisdiction should not be used to direct the police to file an FIR, and that the aggrieved complainant has other statutory remedies under the CrPC. As a result, the petition was dismissed.
The Single Bench ordered that the FIR in corruption cases must be recorded only after preliminary investigation, while dismissing a writ petition seeking the registration of specific corruption accusations.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court in the present case observed that that a writ jurisdiction should not be used to direct the police to file an FIR, and that the aggrieved complainant has other statutory remedies under the CrPC. As a result, the petition was dismissed and ordered that that the FIR in corruption cases must be recorded only after preliminary investigation.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
