Preliminary Enquiry by CBI not mandatory in every corruption case, revived FIR: SC

Preliminary Enquiry by CBI not mandatory in every corruption case, revived FIR: SC In Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) v. Thommandru Hannah Vija…

Preliminary Enquiry by CBI not mandatory in every corruption case, revived FIR: SC
In Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi [Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 2021 dated October 08, 2021], Central Bureau of Investigation ("the Appellant") filed an appeal impugning a judgment Order dated February 11, 2020 passed by the Honorable High Court of Telangana (“Telangana HC”) by which a Writ Petition by Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi ("the Respondent") was allowed and a First Information Report (“FIR”), against the Respondent, dated September 20, 2017 was set aside.
The FIR had been registered against the Respondent for being in possession (allegedly) of assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. The FIR has thus been registered for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). The Telangana HC quashed the FIR on the basis that the Appellant didn’t conduct a Preliminary Enquiry under the CBI (Crime) Manual, 2005 before the registration of the said FIR.
In the case, the Appellant contended that CBI Manual does not make it mandatory to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry (“PE”) before the registration of the FIR. It was stated that a PE cannot be made mandatory for all cases of corruption and is only conducted when the information received is not sufficient to register a regular case.
After taking perusal of all the facts and evidences of the case, the Honorable Supreme Court of India held that if CBI chooses not to hold a PE, the Respondent cannot demand it as a matter of right and therefore, revived the FIR against the Respondent which was erstwhile quashed.
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
About Author

A2ZBimal Jain
Chartered Accountant
CA Bimal Jain is a Member of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India since May 1994 and Member of Institute of Company Secretaries of India since December 2006 along with a Bachelors degree in Law. Also, he is a Qualified SAP - FI/CO Consultant and has more than 21 years of experience in Indirect Taxation and specializes in all aspects of Service Tax, Value Added Tax (VAT)/ Central Sales Tax (CST), Central Excise, Customs, Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), Special Economic Zone (SEZ), Export Oriented Unit (EOU), Export-Import Laws and well acquainted with the concept and impact of way forward Goods and Services tax (GST).
A2Z Taxcorp LLP
Delhi, Delhi, India
468My Recent Articles
- Actions taken by the department during enquiry need not necessarily be termed as harassment
- Who are liable to generate e-invoice w.e.f October 1, 2022
- Personal penalty cannot be imposed on the Chairman of the Company for failure in ensuring proper accounting of the goods
- Stayed the order of cancellation of GST Registration of the assessee for continuing the trading activities
- Can CA be arrested- Section 69 vs Section 132 of the CGST Act
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








