Jeetendra Kumar Sahu vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, a reporter and social activist, filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging alleged financial misappropriation and irregularities in the utilization of Rs. 495.790 lakh sanctioned under Article 275(1) of the Constitution for tribal student hostels in District Korba during the financial year 2021-22. The petitioner sought information under the RTI Act, which revealed that records related to the expenditure were unavailable. An inquiry committee was formed, which found that four private firms received work orders. The firms stated they obtained tender forms and work orders by paying fees directly to the then Assistant Commissioner, Mrs. Maya Varier, without receipts. The inquiry report indicated that a total of Rs. 3,07,50,722/- was transferred to these firms, with Rs. 2,90,95,904/- withdrawn, despite some works not having commenced. The petitioner sought directions for FIR registration, criminal prosecution, departmental proceedings, and recovery of misappropriated funds.

Held

The Court held that since a criminal FIR had already been registered and the matter was under investigation by the competent agency, it would ordinarily refrain from issuing directions for the registration of another FIR or supervising the investigation. The Court noted that the power to investigate and ascertain the complicity of any person lies with the investigating agency. It stated that compelling prosecution of identified individuals at this stage would amount to interference in the investigative process. The Court emphasized that Public Interest Litigation is meant to advance genuine public causes and cannot be used to compel the Court to monitor investigations when statutory authorities are already seized of the matter. The Court found that the petitioner's grievance had already attracted the attention of competent authorities, an inquiry was conducted, and an FIR was registered. The apprehension of the petitioner regarding inaction was considered speculative. Therefore, the Court concluded that no interference or direction was called for, as the reliefs sought would require the Court to enter the arena of investigation, which is impermissible in writ jurisdiction without exceptional circumstances. The petition was deemed devoid of merit.

Key Issues

1. Whether this Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should direct the registration of FIRs and initiation of criminal prosecution against specific public servants, and departmental proceedings, given that an FIR has already been registered concerning the subject matter and the investigation is underway? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that grave illegality and suppression of material records were evident from the unavailability of original expenditure records. The inquiry report, based on statements from firms and examination of available documents, prima facie indicated gross financial misconduct, abuse of official position, evasion of statutory procedure, and embezzlement of government money. The petitioner argued that despite the gravity of findings and recommendations, no effective criminal investigation or recovery had occurred, and the matter warranted judicial intervention to ensure accountability and recovery. Revenue/State's arguments: The State submitted that an FIR bearing Crime No. 501/2025 had already been registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Korba, concerning the subject matter, and the investigation was ongoing. The State contended that if any public servant's involvement was revealed during the investigation, action would be taken according to law. Therefore, the State argued that the present petition was not maintainable and amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court.