Arup Chatterjee vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary

Facts

The petitioner, Arup Chatterjee, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the registration of an FIR based on an online complaint lodged on May 11, 2024, and an email complaint sent on May 12, 2024, to the CBI and ED. The petitioner alleged that the State police failed to register the FIR despite Supreme Court pronouncements in Lalita Kumari and State of Telangana v. Mangipet @ Managipet Sarveshwar Reddy. The petitioner further contended that the State police's inaction indicated favouritism towards the accused, who were senior police officials allegedly involved with political higher-ups, suggesting a lack of impartial investigation by the State. The petitioner also sought directions for the CBI and ED to institute an FIR based on his complaints.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable. While acknowledging the preliminary objection raised by the State regarding the petitioner's locus standi and alternative remedies, the Court found that the circumstances warranted direct intervention. The Court noted the State's resistance to registering the FIR, citing the petitioner's criminal antecedents as the sole ground, which the Court found insufficient to deny investigation. Referencing the CBI Manual and the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, the Court concluded that the matter was fit for investigation by the CBI. Consequently, the Court directed the CBI to register a preliminary inquiry into the complaint. If, after the preliminary inquiry, the Director of CBI concludes that a case for investigation is made out, he is empowered to register an FIR and proceed accordingly. All police officers were directed to cooperate with the CBI's preliminary inquiry. The Court also dismissed an interlocutory application (I.A. No.10676 of 2024) filed by the State after the judgment was reserved, deeming it misconceived and intended to delay the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the petitioner's alleged criminal antecedents and the availability of alternative remedies under the CrPC, specifically Sections 154(3) and 156(3)? (Question of law) - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the State police's failure to register an FIR, coupled with the involvement of senior police officials and potential political influence, necessitated intervention by the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari and State of Telangana v. Mangipet @ Managipet Sarveshwar Reddy, asserting the mandatory nature of FIR registration upon disclosure of a cognizable offense. - Revenue/State's argument: The respondent State, through senior counsel Kapil Sibbal, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. They argued that the petitioner, being an accused in multiple cases, lacked the locus standi to file such a petition. The State contended that the petitioner's proper recourse was to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.