CHARANSINGHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

704                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT     3 S.C.R. 704
                              REPORTS                       [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A                               CHARANSINGH
                                        v.
                 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2021)
B                                MARCH 24, 2021
                  [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD
                             AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
             Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Preliminary enquiry –
      Corruption case – A complaint was received against the appellant
C     in the office of the Director General, Anti-corruption Bureau,
      Maharashtra State, Mumbai on 7.2.2018, wherein various
      allegations were made against the appellant and his brothers with
      regard to accumulating the assets disproportionate to his known
      sources of income – At that time the appellant was a Member and
D     President of Municipal Council – In connection with the said
      complaint, Police Inspector, Anti-corruption Bureau had issued
      notice dated 04.03.2020 to the appellant asking him to provide
      documents relating to his property, assets, bank statements, income
      tax returns and to give statement to the police – Feeling aggrieved
      with the said notice calling upon the appellant to personally remain
E     present before the investigating officer of the Anti-corruption
      Bureau, Nagpur to give his statement in an ‘open enquiry’ in respect
      of the property owned by him along with the information on the
      points stated in the said notice, the appellant preferred writ petition
      before the High Court – High Court dismissed the writ petition – In
F     the instant appeal, question which arose for the consideration was
      whether such an enquiry at pre-FIR stage would be legal – Held:
      An enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible and not only
      permissible but desirable, more particularly in cases where the
      allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring the
      assets/properties disproportionate to his known sources of income
G     – After the enquiry/enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage/
      preliminary enquiry, if, on the basis of the material collected during
      such enquiry, it is found that the complaint is vexatious and/or there
      is no substance at all in the complaint, the FIR shall not be lodged
      – However, if the material discloses prima facie a commission of the
      offence alleged, the FIR will be lodged and the criminal proceedings
H
                                        704
     CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND                             705
                      OTHERS

will be put in motion and further investigation will be carried out in   A
terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Therefore, such a
preliminary enquiry would be permissible only to ascertain whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR would
be registered.
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Preliminary enquiry –           B
Extent of, permissibility – By the impugned notice, during the course
of the ‘open enquiry’, the appellant was called upon to give his
statement and to carry along with the information on the points,
which are referred for the purpose of recording his statement – The
information sought on the said points had direct connection with
the allegations made against the appellant, namely, accumulating         C
assets disproportionate to his known sources of income – However,
such a notice, while conducting the ‘open enquiry’, shall be
restricted to facilitate the appellant to clarify regarding his assets
and known sources of income – The same cannot be said to be a
fishing or roving enquiry. Such a statement cannot be said to be a       D
statement under s.160 and/or the statement to be recorded during
the course of investigation as per the Code of Criminal Procedure
– Such a statement even cannot be used against the appellant during
the course of trial – Statement of the appellant and the information
so received during the course of discrete enquiry shall be only for
the purpose to satisfy and find out whether an offence under             E
s.13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 is disclosed – Such a statement cannot
be said to be confessional in character, and as and when and/or if
such a statement is considered to be confessional, in that case only,
it can be said to be a statement which is self-incriminatory, which
can be said to be impermissible in law – Prevention of Corruption        F
Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(e).
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 While considering the larger question, whether
police is duty bound to register an FIR and/or it is mandatory for
registration of FIR on receipt of information disclosing a               G
cognizable offence and whether it is mandatory or the police officer
has option, discretion or latitude of conducting preliminary enquiry
before registering FIR, this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari
has observed that it is mandatory to register an FIR on receipt of
information disclosing a cognizable offence and it is the general        H
706            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     rule. However, while holding so, this Court has also considered
      the situations/cases in which preliminary enquiry is permissible/
      desirable. While holding that the registration of FIR is mandatory
      under Section 154, if the information discloses commission of a
      cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in
      such a situation and the same is the general rule and must be
B
      strictly complied with, this Court has carved out certain situations/
      cases in which the preliminary enquiry is held to be permissible/
      desirable before registering/lodging of an FIR. It is further
      observed that if the information received does not disclose a
      cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
C     preliminary enquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether
      cognizable offence is disclosed or not. It is observed that as to
      what type and in which cases the preliminary enquiry is to be
      conducted will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
      case. As per the decision of this Court, the categories of cases in
      which preliminary enquiry may be made are as under: (a)
D
      Matrimonial disputes/family disputes; (b) Commercial offences;
      (c) Medical negligence cases; (d) Corruption cases; (e) Cases
      where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal
      prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the
      matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
E     These are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions
      which may warrant preliminary inquiry. [Para 8.1][720-A-G]
            P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595
            : [1970] 3 SCR 931; Lalita Kumari v. Government of
            Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713 –
F           relied on.
            1.2 While expressing the need for a preliminary enquiry
      before proceeding against public servants who are charged with
      the allegation of corruption, it is observed in the case of P.
      Sirajuddin that “before a public servant, whatever be his status,
G     is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious
      misdemeanour or misconduct of indulging into corrupt practice
      and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some
      suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible
      officer. The lodging of such a report against a person who is
      occupying the top position in a department, even if baseless, would
H
     CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND                            707
                      OTHERS

do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to       A
the department he belonged to in general. If the Government
had set up a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department as was
done in the State of Madras and the said department was
entrusted with enquiries of this kind, no exception can be taken
to an enquiry by officers of this department”. It is further observed
                                                                        B
that “when such an enquiry is to be held for the purpose of finding
out whether criminal proceedings are to be initiated and the scope
thereof must be limited to the examination of persons who have
knowledge of the affairs of the person against whom the
allegations are made and documents bearing on the same to find
out whether there is a prima facie evidence of guilt of the officer,    C
thereafter, the ordinary law of the land must take its course and
further enquiry be proceeded with in terms of the Code of
Criminal Procedure by lodging a first information report”.
[Para 9][722-E-G; 723-A]
      2. An enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible          D
and not only permissible but desirable, more particularly in cases
where the allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice
acquiring the assets/properties disproportionate to his known
sources of income. After the enquiry/enquiry at pre-registration
of FIR stage/preliminary enquiry, if, on the basis of the material
collected during such enquiry, it is found that the complaint is        E
vexatious and/or there is no substance at all in the complaint, the
FIR shall not be lodged. However, if the material discloses prima
facie a commission of the offence alleged, the FIR will be lodged
and the criminal proceedings will be put in motion and the further
investigation will be carried out in terms of the Code of Criminal      F
Procedure. Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be
permissible only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is
disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR would be registered.
[Para 9.1][723-B-D]
      3. Even as held by this Court in the case of Superintendent       G
of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, a GD entry recording the
information by the informant disclosing the commission of a
cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and the
police has the power and jurisdiction to investigate the same.

                                                                        H
708            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     However, in an appropriate case, such as allegations of
      misconduct of corrupt practice by a public servant, before lodging
      the first information report and further conducting the
      investigation, if the preliminary enquiry is conducted to ascertain
      whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not, no fault can be
      found. Even at the stage of registering the FIR, what is required
B
      to be considered is whether the information given discloses the
      commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged
      must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the
      commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage, it is enough if
      the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects
C     the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be
      convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been
      committed. Despite the proposition of law laid down by this Court
      in catena of decisions that at the stage of lodging the first
      information report, the police officer need not be satisfied or
      convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed,
D
      considering the observations made by this Court in the case of P.
      Sirajuddin and considering the observations by this Court in the
      case of Lalita Kumari before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held
      and/or conducted after following the procedure as per
      Maharashtra State Anti-corruption & Prohibition Intelligence
E     Bureau Manual, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and/or
      the police officer, Anti-corruption Bureau has no jurisdiction and/
      or authority and/or power at all to conduct such an enquiry at
      pre-registration of FIR stage. [Para 9.2][723-E-H; 724-A-B]
            Superintendent of Police,CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh
F           (2003) 6 SCC 175 : [2003] 3 SCR 485 – relied on.
            4. In the present case, the office of the Director General,
      ACB, Maharashtra State, Mumbai had received a complaint
      against the appellant and his three brothers, wherein various
      allegations have been made against the appellant with regard to
G     accumulating the assets disproportionate to his known sources
      of income. At that time, the appellant was a Member and President
      of the Municipal Council, Katol, District Nagpur. On the basis of
      the said complaint, the Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption
      Bureau, Nagpur initiated a discrete enquiry against the appellant
      with regard to the allegations in the complaint through the officers
H
     CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND                           709
                      OTHERS

working under him. After conducting a discrete enquiry, report         A
dated 27.2.2020 has been submitted to the Superintendent of
Police, ACB, Nagpur. After scrutiny of the said report, the same
has been forwarded to the Director General of Police, ACB. After
considering the report, the Director General of Police, ACB had
directed the Superintendent of Police who in turn had directed
                                                                       B
the Police Inspector, ACB, Nagpur to conduct an ‘open enquiry’
and during the course of conducting an ‘open enquiry’, the
appellant against whom the allegations are made of accumulating
the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, which
can be said to be an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act,
has been served with the impugned notice, impugned before the          C
High Court. A detailed procedure is provided under the
Maharashtra State Anti-corruption & Prohibition Intelligence
Bureau Manual of Instructions 1968, while conducting open
enquiries. Discrete enquiry is permissible as per para 14 of the
said Manual and the ‘open enquiry’ is permissible as per para 15
                                                                       D
of the said Manual. While conducting open enquiries, the enquiry
officer who is conducting the ‘open enquiry’ is required to follow
the following instructions: As soon as an application or information
is received by him for making an open enquiry, it should be
entered in the Enquiry Register and further developments
recorded in it from time to time. (For proforma of the Register        E
see Appendix XX). The number of the file allotted to the enquiry
should be cited in all references. The contents of the application
or information should be scrutinized carefully and various
allegations contained therein be noted seriatum. A plan of action
should be prepared, indicating therein – The Director’s file
                                                                       F
number and the date of receipt, Serial number of the allegation,
Allegations in brief, Name of witnesses to be examined or likely
to be examined, Papers or documents to be collected and
Probable date of completion of the enquiry. The plan of action
prepared by the Enquiry Officer as above, should be submitted
within seven days of the receipt of the enquiry to the Director.       G
The statement of the applicant should be recorded noting therein
all the circumstances within his knowledge with regard to the
allegations. The statements of all the witnesses whose names
might transpire during the examination of the applicant and also
of other witnesses, if any, should be recorded. All available
                                                                       H
710            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     documentary evidence in support of the allegation should be
      collected. The statement of the person against whom the
      allegations have been made should be recorded, giving him an
      opportunity to explain each allegation against him. The application
      should not be shown to him in any circumstances. The name of
      the applicant should not be disclosed, if the applicant so expressly
B
      desires. The statements of all persons cited in defence should
      be recorded and the relevant documentary evidence collected.
      After recording the evidence of both the sides and collecting the
      necessary documents, the entire record should be examined to
      formulate a definite opinion on each of the allegations. The papers
C     of enquiry, with the final report, should be submitted to the
      Director. A copy of a ‘Roznama’ containing details showing the
      day-to-day progress of the enquiry should be maintained as from
      the date of the receipt of the application and attached to the papers
      of enquiry and the final report. [Para 10][724-C-H; 725-A-H;
      726-A-C]
D
             5. After completing the enquiry, a final report along with
      the papers of the enquiry is required to be sent to the Director
      General, ACB. Even, while submitting the final report and the
      papers of the enquiry, which are the points to be considered and/
      or borne in mind are stated in para 16 of the Manual. Only
E     thereafter and if it is found that a cognizable offence is made out
      and there is substance in the allegations, an FIR would be lodged
      and further investigation will be carried out after following the
      procedure as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, a
      fool proof safeguard and procedure is provided before lodging an
F     FIR/complaint before the Court against the public servant, who
      is facing the allegations of corrupt practice. However, such an
      enquiry would be conducted to ascertain whether a cognizable
      offence is disclosed or not. Even at the stage of registering the
      first information report, the police officer is not required to be
      satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has been
G     committed. It is enough if the information discloses the
      commission of a cognizable offence as the information only sets
      in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all
      necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance
      with law. Therefore, as such, holding such an enquiry, may be
H     discrete/open enquiry, at pre-registration of FIR stage in the case
     CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND                              711
                      OTHERS

of allegation of corrupt practice of accumulating assets                  A
disproportionate to his known sources of income, cannot be said
to be per se illegal. [Para 10.1][726-C-G]
       6. The next question posed for the consideration of this
Court is, whether to what extent such an enquiry is permissible
and what would be the scope and ambit of such an enquiry. By the          B
impugned notice, impugned before the High Court, and during
the course of the ‘open enquiry’, the appellant has been called
upon to give his statement and he has been called upon to carry
along with the information on the points, which are referred for
the purpose of recording his statement. The information sought
on the aforesaid points is having a direct connection with the            C
allegations made against the appellant, namely, accumulating
assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. However,
such a notice, while conducting the ‘open enquiry’, shall be
restricted to facilitate the appellant to clarify regarding his assets
and known sources of income. The same cannot be said to be a              D
fishing or roving enquiry. Such a statement cannot be said to be a
statement under Section 160 and/or the statement to be recorded
during the course of investigation as per the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Such a statement even cannot be used against the
appellant during the course of trial. Statement of the appellant
and the information so received during the course of discrete             E
enquiry shall be only for the purpose to satisfy and find out
whether an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 is
disclosed. Such a statement cannot be said to be confessional in
character, and as and when and/or if such a statement is considered
to be confessional, in that case only, it can be said to be a statement   F
which is self-incriminatory, which can be said to be impermissible
in law. [Para 11][726-H; 727-A-D]
      7. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present
case as such the appellant has produced the relevant documents
of some of the properties owned by him and the appellant has              G
joined the ‘open enquiry’. It also appears from the counter filed
on behalf of the Anti-corruption Bureau that on the basis of the
information given by the appellant, letters have been issued to
various authorities/banks, seeking further and better particulars.
Partial statement of the appellant has already been recorded.
                                                                          H
712            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     However, such a statement/enquiry would be restricted only to
      ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. Such
      a statement cannot be said to be a confessional statement. After
      having been satisfied and after conclusion of the enquiry and on
      the basis of the material collected, if it is found that there is
      substance in the allegations against the appellant and it discloses
B
      a cognizable offence, FIR will be lodged and the investigating
      agency has to collect the evidence/further evidence to
      substantiate the allegations/charge of accumulating the assets
      disproportionate to his known sources of income. However, if
      during the enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage, if the appellant
C     satisfies on production of the materials produced relating to his
      known sources of income and the assets, in that case, no FIR will
      be lodged and if he is not able to clarify his assets, vis-à-vis, known
      sources of income, then the FIR will be lodged and he will be
      subjected to trial. Therefore, as such, such an enquiry would be
      to safeguard his interest also which may avoid further harassment
D
      to him. [Para 12]
                             Case Law Reference
      [2013] 14 SCR 713               relied on                Para 3.2
      [1970] 3 SCR 931                relied on                Para 9
E
      [2003] 3 SCR 485                relied on                Para 9.2
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      No. 363 of 2021.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2020 of the High Court
F     of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition
      No. 226 of 2020.
            Subodh Dharamadhikari, Sr. Adv., Mohit P. Khajanchi, Mahesh
      Dhatrak, Gaurav Agrawal, Advs. for the Appellant.
           Raja Thakare, Sr. Adv., Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A.
G     Pande, Geo Joseph, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
H     and order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
     CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND                                   713
               OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition No. 226 of              A
2020, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition
challenging notice dated 04.03.2020 issued by the Police Inspector, Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Nagpur, calling upon the appellant to personally remain
present before the investigating officer of the Anti-corruption Bureau,
Nagpur to give his statement in an ‘open enquiry’ in respect of the property
                                                                               B
owned by him along with the information on the points stated in the said
notice, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
       2. That a complaint was received against the appellant in the office
of the Director General, Anti-corruption Bureau, Maharashtra State,
Mumbai on 7.2.2018, wherein various allegations have been made against
the appellant and his brothers with regard to accumulating the assets          C
disproportionate to his known sources of income. It appears that at that
time the appellant was a Member and President of Municipal Council,
Katol, District Nagpur. That in connection with the said complaint, Police
Inspector, Anti-corruption Bureau, Nagpur had issued a notice to the
appellant asking him to provide documents relating to his property, assets,    D
bank statements, income tax returns and asking the appellant to give
statement to the police.
       3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said notice dated
04.03.2020 issued by the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Nagpur calling upon the appellant to personally remain present before          E
the investigating officer of the Anti-corruption Bureau, Nagpur to give
his statement in an ‘open enquiry’ in respect of the property owned by
him along with the information on the points stated in the said notice, the
appellant herein preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 226 of 2020 before
the High Court.
                                                                               F
       3.1 It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Police
Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur has no power to issue the
said notice. It was also submitted that the said notice was issued in a
purported exercise of power under Section 160 Cr.P.C., however, Section
160 Cr.P.C. shall not be applicable at all as the appellant is not a witness
in the case. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that there is     G
no statutory provision which would compel any body to give statement
to the police. It was also submitted that there is no FIR against the
appellant.
      3.2 On the other hand, it was the case on behalf of the State that
the appellant has been called upon to give his statement in an ‘open           H
714             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     enquiry’ which is in the nature of preliminary enquiry. It was the complaint
      received by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur regarding amassing of
      huge properties by the appellant. It was submitted that such a preliminary
      enquiry is permissible, as held by this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari
      v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1. Heavy reliance
      was placed upon paragraphs 89, and 120 of the said decision. After
B
      following the decision of this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra),
      the High Court has observed that a preliminary enquiry in order to verify
      the correctness of the allegations and also to elicit some information/
      material which may be relevant for deciding the question regarding
      commission or non-commission of cognizable offence would be
C     permissible. Thereafter, the High Court has further observed that as the
      notice has been issued only for facilitating the purpose of preliminary
      enquiry, it cannot be said to be bad in law. The High Court has further
      observed that it is true that by such notice a person like the appellant
      cannot be compelled to make his personal appearance before the officer
      of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. However, the High Court has further
D
      observed that not responding to such a notice, may be at the peril of the
      noticee himself for the reason that the officer of the Anti-Corruption
      Bureau may draw some adverse inference against the person not co-
      operating with the preliminary enquiry. For the aforesaid, the High Court
      took into consideration Condition No. 16 of the State Anti-Corruption
E     Bureau Manual. By observing the above, the High Court, by the
      impugned judgment and order has dismissed the said writ petition, which
      has given rise to the present appeal.
             4. Shri Subodh Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate appearing
      on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that notice dated
F     04.03.2020 issued by the Anti-Corruption Bureau by which the appellant
      has been directed to appear before the investigating officer, Anti-
      Corruption Bureau, Nagpur and to make a statement in respect of the
      property owned by him and to give information on the points stated in
      the said notice has no statutory force.
G           4.1 It is submitted that the said notice has been issued in purported
      exercise of power under Section 160 Cr.P.C. However, as the appellant
      cannot be said to be a witness in the case, Section 160 Cr.P.C. shall not
      be applicable at all. It is submitted that therefore notice dated 4.3.2020 is
      beyond the scope and ambit of Section 160 Cr.P.C.

H
     CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND                                   715
               OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      4.2 It is further submitted that while dismissing the writ petition,     A
the High Court has materially erred in relying upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra).
       4.3 It is further submitted that the High Court ought to have
appreciated that such a notice calling upon the appellant to give the
statement and more particularly on the points mentioned in the said notice     B
shall be hit by Article 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is
further submitted that as such notice dated 4.3.2020 is for roving and
fishing enquiry which is not permissible under the law and as such it has
no statutory backing.
       4.4 It is further submitted that the High Court has failed to           C
appreciate that notice dated 4.3.2020 is a clear example of political
vendetta and actuated by malice to harass the political opponent by the
ruling party.
      4.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that as such the reliance placed upon Condition        D
No. 16 of the State Anti-Corruption Bureau Manual has no statutory
force even as observed and held by this Court in the case of Lalita
Kumari (supra).
       4.6 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed          E
by the High Court, as well as, impugned notice dated 4.3.2020 issued by
the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur.
      5. While opposing the present appeal, Shri Raja Thakare, learned
Senior Advocate has vehemently submitted that the notice issued by the
Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur is absolutely in              F
consonance with the ACB Manual which permits the discrete enquiries
and open enquiries, so as to find out the veracity of the allegations in the
complaint. It is submitted that even the same is also permissible as per
the decision of this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra).
       5.1 It is submitted that a complaint was received in the office of
                                                                               G
the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Maharashtra State,
Mumbai, wherein various allegations have been made against the
appellant with regard to accumulating the assets disproportionate to his
known sources of income. That on the basis of the said complaint, the
Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur initiated a
discrete enquiry against the appellant with regard to the allegations in       H
716             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     the complaint through the officers working under him. Accordingly, a
      discrete enquiry was conducted and on 27.02.2020, a report was
      submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
      Nagpur. It is submitted that after scrutiny of the said report, the
      Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur forwarded
      the same to the Director General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
B
      Maharashtra, Mumbai. That the Director General of Police, Anti-
      Corruption Bureau, Maharashtra vide his letter dated 28.02.2020 directed
      the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur who in
      turn directed the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur to
      conduct an ‘open enquiry’.
C            5.2 It is submitted that the said ‘open enquiry’ is to find out if an
      offence under Section 13(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is
      disclosed. It is submitted that Section 13(e) of the PC Act makes it
      apparent that the person against whom a complaint is received has to
      satisfy the investigating agency whether his assets are in consonance
D     with his known sources of income and accountable. The information
      regarding assets may be provided by the source informant or can be
      detected during the discrete enquiry, however, the sources of his income
      would be within exclusive knowledge of the person against whom the
      complaint or information is received. It is submitted that therefore the
      ‘open enquiry’ is warranted before the registration of an offence. It is
E     submitted that accordingly the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption
      Bureau, Nagpur directed the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
      Nagpur to conduct an ‘open enquiry’ with regard to the allegations levelled
      in the complaint.
             5.3 It is submitted that the notice has been issued as per the
F     principals of natural justice to facilitate the appellant to clarify regarding
      his assets and known sources of income, which would enable the
      investigating officer to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed
      or not. It is submitted that however Section 160 Cr.P.C. has been
      inadvertently mentioned in the said notice.
G            5.4 It is further submitted that, as such, despite number of notices
      issued, the appellant is not co-operating with the investigating agency
      and is not appearing for giving his statement on the points mentioned in
      the notice, on one pretext or the other. It is submitted that, as such, the
      appellant did join the ‘open enquiry’ and ask for time to collect details
H     and produce the same. It is submitted that even on 7.1.2021, the appellant
     CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND                                     717
               OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

attended the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur with relevant          A
documents of some of the properties owned by him and his partial
statement was recorded and his statement remained incomplete. But
the appellant avoided to give details of his assets, liabilities and prominent
expenditures and therefore no conclusion could be drawn. It is submitted
therefore that once the appellant having presented himself before the
                                                                                 B
investigating authority on 7.1.2021 and his partial statement having been
recorded, the issue whether the said notice can compel the appellant to
appear in person before the officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Nagpur no longer survives for consideration by this Court.
       5.5 It is submitted that, in fact, the appellant has been summoned
for a preliminary enquiry only to ascertain whether cognizable offence           C
is disclosed or not. If the preliminary enquiry discloses the cognizable
offence, then a first information report will be registered against the
appellant. However, that stage has not been reached as the appellant
has only partially recorded his statement before the investigating officer
and the preliminary enquiry has remained un-concluded.                           D
       5.6 It is submitted that in the discrete enquiry, the investigating
authority has found, prima facie, substance in the allegations with regard
to the complaint received and therefore it was decided to conduct an
‘open enquiry’. It is submitted that the decision with regard to discrete
enquiry as well as an open enquiry with regard to allegations against the        E
appellant was taken as per the provisions of the Manual of the Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Maharashtra. Heavy reliance is placed on Chapter
IV of the Anti-Corruption Manual Rules, which provides for conducting
the investigation including discrete enquiry and ‘open enquiry’.
        5.7 It is further submitted that the enquiry is being conducted to       F
verify the truthfulness of the allegations with regard to the accumulation
of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of the
appellant. Unless the relevant property details of the appellant are made
available to the authorities, the investigating authority will not be able to
ascertain as to whether the assets of the appellants are disproportionate
to his known sources of income or not. The very nature of the enquiry in         G
respect of offence under Section 13(e) of the PC Act presupposes that
it is the person against whom the allegations are made has to explain the
details of his property qua his known sources of income. It is submitted
that therefore the enquiry initiated should reach to its logical conclusion.
It is submitted that at the time of culmination of the inquiry, a decision
                                                                                 H
718               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     will be taken on merits and on the basis of the evidence/material collected
      during the course of ‘open enquiry’, it will be considered whether a
      cognizable offence is made out or not. It is submitted that if no substance
      is found during the ‘open enquiry’, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur
      may close the enquiry without any further action.
B            5.8 It is further submitted that calling upon the appellant to disclose
      his properties, assets etc. cannot be said to be in violation of Articles
      20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India, as alleged. It is submitted to
      invoke the constitutional right under Article 20(3), an accusation against
      him must exist. It is submitted that as on date no FIR has been registered
      against the appellant and the investigating authorities are only conducting
C     the preliminary enquiry. It is submitted that it cannot be said that the said
      notice seeks to make a roving inquiry with regard to the assets and
      personal details of the appellant or that it is vague.
            5.9 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
      present appeal.
D
             6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
      at length.
             At the outset, it is required to be noted that what was challenged
      before the High Court was notice issued by the Police Inspector, Anti-
      Corruption Bureau, Nagpur, by which the appellant has been called upon
E     to give his statement in respect of the properties owned by him, for the
      purpose of enquiring the complaint against him, alleging accumulating
      the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income which, as
      such, was/is at pre-FIR stage. By the aforesaid notice dated 4.3.2020,
      the appellant has been called upon to carry along with the information on
F     the following aspects for the purpose of recording his statement:
             1)     Record in respect of ancestral and self-acquired property
                    in your name, for example, Registered Deed, Construction
                    Licence, Receipts relating to tax, Sale Deed of Agricultural
                    Land, 7/12 Extract and Mutation Entries, etc.
G            2)     Details of ancestral and self-acquired gold coins and
                    jewellery, likewise sale and purchase of vehicle.
             3)     Passbooks, Certificates, L.I.C., Shares/Debentures
                    Certificates, etc. in respect of investments at bank, insurance
                    and others in your name and in the name of your family
H                   members.
     CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND                                     719
               OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       4)     Details of documentary evidence in respect of loan                 A
              borrowed by you.
       5)     Proofs and income tax return in respect of your income
              other than your remuneration.
       6)     Details of expenditure incurred by you in respect of
              pilgrimages, functions, hospitals, foreign tours, etc.             B

       7)     Information regarding remuneration and allowances
              received by you.
      The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has refused
to quash the said notice mainly relying upon the decision of this Court in       C
the case of Lalita Kumari (supra).
      7. Therefore, the short question which is posed for the
consideration of this Court is, whether such an enquiry at pre-FIR stage
would be legal and to what extent such an enquiry is permissible?
       7.1 While answering the aforesaid two questions and permissibility        D
of the enquiry at pre-FIR stage, it is required to be noted that on the
basis of the complaint against him, the appellant is facing various
allegations with regard to accumulating the assets disproportionate to
his known sources of income, when the appellant was a member and
the President of the Municipal Council, Katol, District Nagpur – a public
                                                                                 E
servant. At that stage and while considering the veracity of the allegation
of accumulating the assets disproportionate to his known sources of
income, the investigating agency has thought it fit to hold an ‘open enquiry’
and during the course of such ‘open enquiry’ the appellant has been
called upon to make his statement along with the information on the
points, referred to hereinabove. Whether, such an enquiry, which can be          F
said to be a preliminary enquiry, is permissible under the Maharashtra
State Anti-Corruption Manual shall be dealt with and considered
hereinbelow.
       8. However, whether in a case of a complaint against a public
servant regarding accumulating the assets disproportionate to his known          G
sources of income, which can be said to be an offence under Section
13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, an enquiry at pre-
FIR stage is permissible or not and/or it is desirable or not, if any decision
is required, the same is governed by the decision of this Court in the
case of Lalita Kumari (supra).
                                                                                 H
720               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A             8.1 While considering the larger question, whether police is duty
      bound to register an FIR and/or it is mandatory for registration of FIR on
      receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence and whether it is
      mandatory or the police officer has option, discretion or latitude of
      conducting preliminary enquiry before registering FIR, this Court in the
      case of Lalita Kumari (supra) has observed that it is mandatory to
B
      register an FIR on receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence
      and it is the general rule. However, while holding so, this Court has also
      considered the situations/cases in which preliminary enquiry is permissible/
      desirable. While holding that the registration of FIR is mandatory under
      Section 154, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable
C     offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation and
      the same is the general rule and must be strictly complied with, this
      Court has carved out certain situations/cases in which the preliminary
      enquiry is held to be permissible/desirable before registering/lodging of
      an FIR. It is further observed that if the information received does not
      disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
D
      preliminary enquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether cognizable
      offence is disclosed or not. It is observed that as to what type and in
      which cases the preliminary enquiry is to be conducted will depend upon
      the facts and circumstances of each case. As per the decision of this
      Court, the categories of cases in which preliminary enquiry may be made
E     are as under:
               (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
               (b) Commercial offences
               (c) Medical negligence cases
F              (d) Corruption cases
               (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal
               prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the
               matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
               The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all
G
               conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
               In paragraph 120, this Court concluded and issued directions as
      under:
               “120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
H
CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND                                  721
          OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of         A
the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable
offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable
offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary
inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable            B
offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary
inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such
closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not        C
later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing
the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering
offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken
against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information       D
received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity
or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain
whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is         E
to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry
may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
                                                                         F
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal
prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the          G
matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

                                                                         H
722             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A           120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused
            and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-
            bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of
            such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General
            Diary entry.
B           120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the
            record of all information received in a police station, we direct
            that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether
            resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be
            mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the
            decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected,
C           as mentioned above.”
            9. In the context of offences relating to corruption, in paragraph
      117 in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), this Court also took note of
      the decision of this Court in the case of P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras
      (1970) 1 SCC 595 in which case this Court expressed the need for a
D     preliminary enquiry before proceeding against public servants.
             While expressing the need for a preliminary enquiry before
      proceeding against public servants who are charged with the allegation
      of corruption, it is observed in the case of P. Sirajuddin (supra) that
      “before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with
E     acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct
      of indulging into corrupt practice and a first information is lodged against
      him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations
      by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person
      who is occupying the top position in a department, even if baseless,
F     would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the
      department he belonged to in general. If the Government had set up a
      Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department as was done in the State of
      Madras and the said department was entrusted with enquiries of this
      kind, no exception can be taken to an enquiry by officers of this
      department”. It is further observed that “when such an enquiry is to be
G     held for the purpose of finding out whether criminal proceedings are to
      be initiated and the scope thereof must be limited to the examination of
      persons who have knowledge of the affairs of the person against whom
      the allegations are made and documents bearing on the same to find out
      whether there is a prima facie evidence of guilt of the officer, thereafter,
H     the ordinary law of the land must take its course and further enquiry be
     CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND                                   723
               OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

proceeded with in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure by lodging a         A
first information report”.
       9.1 Thus, an enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible
and not only permissible but desirable, more particularly in cases where
the allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring the assets/
properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. After the          B
enquiry/enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage/preliminary enquiry, if,
on the basis of the material collected during such enquiry, it is found that
the complaint is vexatious and/or there is no substance at all in the
complaint, the FIR shall not be lodged. However, if the material discloses
prima facie a commission of the offence alleged, the FIR will be lodged
and the criminal proceedings will be put in motion and the further             C
investigation will be carried out in terms of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be permissible
only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not and only
thereafter FIR would be registered. Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry
would be in the interest of the alleged accused also against whom the          D
complaint is made.
       9.2 Even as held by this Court in the case of Superintendent of
Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175, a GD entry
recording the information by the informant disclosing the commission of
a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and the             E
police has the power and jurisdiction to investigate the same. However,
in an appropriate case, such as allegations of misconduct of corrupt
practice by a public servant, before lodging the first information report
and further conducting the investigation, if the preliminary enquiry is
conducted to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not,
no fault can be found. Even at the stage of registering the FIR, what is       F
required to be considered is whether the information given discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must
provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a
cognizable offence. At this stage, it is enough if the police officer on the
basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable         G
offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable
offence has been committed. Despite the proposition of law laid down
by this Court in catena of decisions that at the stage of lodging the first
information report, the police officer need not be satisfied or convinced
that a cognizable offence has been committed, considering the
                                                                               H
724               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     observations made by this Court in the case of P. Sirajuddin (supra)
      and considering the observations by this Court in the case of Lalita
      Kumari (supra) before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held and/or
      conducted after following the procedure as per Maharashtra State Anti-
      corruption & Prohibition Intelligence Bureau Manual, it cannot be said
      that the same is illegal and/or the police officer, Anti-corruption Bureau
B
      has no jurisdiction and/or authority and/or power at all to conduct such
      an enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage.
             10. In the present case, the office of the Director General, ACB,
      Maharashtra State, Mumbai had received a complaint against the appellant
      and his three brothers, wherein various allegations have been made against
C     the appellant with regard to accumulating the assets disproportionate to
      his known sources of income. At that time, the appellant was a Member
      and President of the Municipal Council, Katol, District Nagpur. On the
      basis of the said complaint, the Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption
      Bureau, Nagpur initiated a discrete enquiry against the appellant with
D     regard to the allegations in the complaint through the officers working
      under him. After conducting a discrete enquiry, report dated 27.2.2020
      has been submitted to the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nagpur. After
      scrutiny of the said report, the same has been forwarded to the Director
      General of Police, ACB. After considering the report, the Director General
      of Police, ACB had directed the Superintendent of Police who in turn
E     had directed the Police Inspector, ACB, Nagpur to conduct an ‘open
      enquiry’ and during the course of conducting an ‘open enquiry’, the
      appellant against whom the allegations are made of accumulating the
      assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, which can be
      said to be an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, has been
F     served with the impugned notice, impugned before the High Court. A
      detailed procedure is provided under the Maharashtra State Anti-
      corruption & Prohibition Intelligence Bureau Manual of Instructions 1968,
      while conducting open enquiries. Discrete enquiry is permissible as per
      para 14 of the said Manual and the ‘open enquiry’ is permissible as per
      para 15 of the said Manual. While conducting open enquiries, the enquiry
G     officer who is conducting the ‘open enquiry’ is required to follow the
      following instructions:
            (a)     As soon as an application or information is received by him
                    for making an open enquiry, it should be entered in the
                    Enquiry Register and further developments recorded in it
H
CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND                                 725
          OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      from time to time. (For proforma of the Register see              A
      Appendix XX). The number of the file allotted to the enquiry
      should be cited in all references.
(b)   The contents of the application or information should be
      scrutinized carefully and various allegations contained therein
      be noted seriatum.                                                B
(c)   A plan of action should be prepared, indicating therein –
      The Director’s file number and the date of receipt,
      Serial number of the allegation,
      Allegations in brief,                                             C
      Name of witnesses to be examined or likely to be examined,
      Papers or documents to be collected and
      Probable date of completion of the enquiry.
(d)   The plan of action prepared by the Enquiry Officer as above,      D
      should be submitted within seven days of the receipt of the
      enquiry to the Director.
(e)   The statement of the applicant should be recorded nothing
      therein all the circumstances within his knowledge with
      regard to the allegations.                                        E

(f)   The statements of all the witnesses whose names might
      transpire during the examination of the applicant and also
      of other witnesses, if any, should be recorded.
(g)   All available documentary evidence in support of the              F
      allegation should be collected.
(h)   The statement of the person against whom the allegations
      have been made should be recorded, giving him an
      opportunity to explain each allegation against him. The
      application should not be shown to him in any circumstances.
                                                                        G
      The name of the applicant should not be disclosed, if the
      applicant so expressly desires.
(i)   The statements of all persons cited in defence should be
      recorded and the relevant documentary evidence collected.
                                                                        H
726               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A           (j)     After recording the evidence of both the sides and collecting
                    the necessary documents, the entire record should be
                    examined to formulate a definite opinion on each of the
                    allegations.
            (k)     The papers of enquiry, with the final report, should be
B                   submitted to the Director.
            (l)     A copy of a ‘Roznama’ containing details showing the day-
                    to-day progress of the enquiry should be maintained as from
                    the date of the receipt of the application and attached to
                    the papers of enquiry and the final report.
C             10.1 After completing the enquiry, a final report along with the
      papers of the enquiry is required to be sent to the Director General,
      ACB. Even, while submitting the final report and the papers of the
      enquiry, which are the points to be considered and/or borne in mind are
      stated in para 16 of the Manual. Only thereafter and if it is found that a
D     cognizable offence is made out and there is substance in the allegations,
      an FIR would be lodged and further investigation will be carried out
      after following the procedure as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.
      Therefore, a fool proof safeguard and procedure is provided before
      lodging an FIR/complaint before the Court against the public servant,
      who is facing the allegations of corrupt practice. However, as observed
E     hereinabove, such an enquiry would be conducted to ascertain whether
      a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. As observed hereinabove, even
      at the stage of registering the first information report, the police officer
      is not required to be satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has
      been committed. It is enough if the information discloses the commission
F     of a cognizable offence as the information only sets in motion the
      investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence,
      and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. Therefore, as such,
      holding such an enquiry, may be discrete/open enquiry, at pre-registration
      of FIR stage in the case of allegation of corrupt practice of accumulating
      assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, cannot be said
G     to be per se illegal.
            11. However, the next question posed for the consideration of this
      Court is, whether to what extent such an enquiry is permissible and
      what would be the scope and ambit of such an enquiry. By the impugned
      notice, impugned before the High Court, and during the course of the
H
     CHARANSINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND                                    727
               OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

‘open enquiry’, the appellant has been called upon to give his statement        A
and he has been called upon to carry along with the information on the
points, which are referred to hereinabove for the purpose of recording
his statement. The information sought on the aforesaid points is having a
direct connection with the allegations made against the appellant, namely,
accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
                                                                                B
However, such a notice, while conducting the ‘open enquiry’, shall be
restricted to facilitate the appellant to clarify regarding his assets and
known sources of income. The same cannot be said to be a fishing or
roving enquiry. Such a statement cannot be said to be a statement under
Section 160 and/or the statement to be recorded during the course of
investigation as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a statement           C
even cannot be used against the appellant during the course of trial.
Statement of the appellant and the information so received during the
course of discrete enquiry shall be only for the purpose to satisfy and
find out whether an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988
is disclosed. Such a statement cannot be said to be confessional in
                                                                                D
character, and as and when and/or if such a statement is considered to
be confessional, in that case only, it can be said to be a statement which
is self-incriminatory, which can be said to be impermissible in law.
       12. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case
as such the appellant has produced the relevant documents of some of
the properties owned by him and the appellant has joined the ‘open              E
enquiry’. It also appears from the counter filed on behalf of the Anti-
corruption Bureau that on the basis of the information given by the
appellant, letters have been issued to various authorities/banks, seeking
further and better particulars. Partial statement of the appellant has
already been recorded. However, as observed hereinabove, such a                 F
statement/enquiry would be restricted only to ascertain whether a
cognizable offence is disclosed or not. Such a statement cannot be said
to be a confessional statement. After having been satisfied and after
conclusion of the enquiry and on the basis of the material collected, if it
is found that there is substance in the allegations against the appellant
and it discloses a cognizable offence, FIR will be lodged and the               G
investigating agency has to collect the evidence/further evidence to
substantiate the allegations/charge of accumulating the assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income. However, if during the
enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage, if the appellant satisfies on
production of the materials produced relating to his known sources of           H
728              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     income and the assets, in that case, no FIR will be lodged and if he is not
      able to clarify his assets, vis-à-vis, known sources of income, then the
      FIR will be lodged and he will be subjected to trial. Therefore, as such,
      such an enquiry would be to safeguard his interest also which may avoid
      further harassment to him.
B            13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we see
      no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by
      the High Court and we dismiss the appeal with the above observations
      and clarifications that the statement of the appellant on the points
      mentioned in the impugned notice would be only to satisfy whether a
      cognizable offence is disclosed or not and so as to enable the appellant
C     to clarify the allegations made against him with respect to accumulation
      of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and the same
      shall not be treated as a confessional statement.
            14. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above clarifications/
      observations.
D
      Devika Gujral                                               Appeal dismissed.




E




F




G




H