The case revolves around a series of petitions challenging the registration of an FIR by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Raipur, Chhattisgarh, against several high-profile individuals, including Anil Tuteja, a retired IAS officer, and others involved in alleged corruption activities. The FIR was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, following information provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The petitioners argued that the FIR was a second FIR based on the same set of facts as an earlier FIR registered in Uttar Pradesh, thus making it illegal.
Key Legal Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the FIR: The primary issue was whether the FIR registered by the ACB was valid, given that it was allegedly based on the same facts as another FIR registered in Uttar Pradesh.
2. Jurisdiction of Investigating Agencies: Another issue was whether the ACB had jurisdiction to register the FIR based on information provided by the ED, especially after the Supreme Court quashed an ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) related to the same matter.
3. Contempt of Court: The petitioners claimed that the registration of the FIR violated a Supreme Court order, amounting to contempt of court.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, in its detailed judgment delivered by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and JusticeRavindra Kumar Agrawal, upheld the registration of the FIR by the ACB. The court noted that under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), it is mandatory for a police officer to register an FIR if the information provided discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh to emphasize that the registration of an FIR is mandatory and does not require a preliminary inquiry if the information discloses a cognizable offence.
The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the FIR was a second FIR based on the same facts as the FIR registered in Uttar Pradesh. The court distinguished the two FIRs by highlighting that they were registered by different investigating agencies for distinct offenses under different laws.
The court also dismissed the allegations of contempt of court, stating that the communication between the ED and ACB occurred before the Supreme Court’s order, and therefore, no contempt had occurred.
Important Observations:
The court made a crucial observation regarding the duty of police officers to register an FIR. It stated, โIf the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offense, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations, such as the truthfulness or correctness of the information, are matters for investigation and not for consideration at the time of FIR registration.โ
Also Read
Parties Involved:
– Petitioners: Anil Tuteja, Yash Tuteja, Anwar Dhebar, Arun Pati Tripathi, Niranjan Das, Vidhu Gupta, Nitesh Purohit, Yash Purohit, Arvind Singh
– Respondents: Union of India (through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance), Directorate of Enforcement, State of Chhattisgarh (through the Station House Officer, Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur)
Lawyers Involved:
– For Petitioners: Mr. Siddharth Agrawal (Senior Advocate), Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava (Senior Advocate), Mr. Abhishek Sinha (Senior Advocate), and others.
– For Respondents: Mr. Ramakant Mishra (Deputy Solicitor General), Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani (Senior Advocate), Mr. Zoheb Hossain (Special Public Prosecutor).
Case Numbers:
– CRMP No. 721/2024
– CRMP No. 860/2024
– CRMP No. 936/2024
– CRMP No. 959/2024
– CRMP No. 964/2024
– CRMP No. 1098/2024
– CRMP No. 1186/2024
– CRMP No. 1286/2024
– CRMP No. 1287/2024
– CRMP No. 1444/2024
– CRMP No. 1467/2024
– CRMP No. 1807/2024
