Disproportionate-assets FIR quashed where foundational calculations ignored disclosed income and lacked linkage to family assets.

The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police who joined the Bihar Police Service on 10 February 2015, sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of Economic Offences Unit P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022, registered under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The FIR was based on an anonymous typed complaint alleging that the petitioner had accumulated assets disproportionate to his known lawful sources of income, including properties and investments allegedly held in the names of his wife, mother, father-in-law and other relatives.

The prosecution alleged disproportionate assets of approximately Rs. 63,79,700, representing 81.9% excess over the petitioner’s known and verified income during the check period from 10 February 2015 to 5 September 2022.

The petitioner contended that no preliminary enquiry or independent verification preceded registration of the FIR; that his agricultural income of Rs. 34,55,800, certified by the Circle Officer and reflected in statutory returns, had been excluded; and that assets standing in the names of his mother and father-in-law had been wrongly attributed to him.

The Economic Offences Unit maintained that the calculation and ownership of the assets required investigation and that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation.

Nearly four years after registration, the investigation remained incomplete and no charge-sheet had been filed.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings could be quashed merely because no preliminary enquiry preceded registration of the disproportionate-assets case, particularly where the prosecution had not produced the detailed source report or contemporaneous material supporting the alleged calculation.

2. Whether the omission of the petitioner’s disclosed agricultural income and the absence of material connecting him with assets standing in the names of relatives undermined the foundational basis of the prosecution case.

3. Whether continuation of the FIR and Special Case No. 53 of 2022, in view of the incomplete investigation and the allegedly unreliable foundational material, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, 2023, corresponding to the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, holding that inherent jurisdiction may be exercised where the allegations, even taken at face value, do not disclose an offence or continuation of proceedings would constitute abuse of process, and on State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, cautioning against a merits-based evaluation while permitting interference where the prosecution lacks a basic foundation.

Following State of Karnataka v. Channakeshava H.D., Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Charan Singh v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that a preliminary enquiry in corruption cases is desirable but not mandatory; however, where it is dispensed with, a superior officer must have credible and sufficiently detailed source material disclosing a cognizable offence.

The Court also relied on P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka and Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P. for the principle that investigation and trial must proceed with promptitude as part of the Article 21 guarantee of fair procedure.

Under Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P., unimpeachable defence material may justify quashing where it is reliable, rules out the prosecution’s factual assertions, remains unrebutted and demonstrates that continuation of proceedings would be abusive.

Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley, P. Nallammal v. State, Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and M. Krishna Reddy v. State supported consideration of undisputed public documents, statutory returns and disclosed lawful income at the quashing stage where they materially affect the alleged disproportion.

The Court also referred to the Bihar Government’s letter dated 29 August 2008, requiring scrutiny of government employees’ asset declarations and clarification of suspicious entries before further action.

The Court held that the case did not turn solely on the absence of a preliminary enquiry. Although such an enquiry was not legally indispensable, the prosecution had failed to place on record the detailed source report or other contemporaneous material showing how the alleged disproportion was calculated and how the superior officer had applied his mind before registration of the FIR.

The petitioner’s agricultural income was supported by a government certificate, prior departmental disclosures and income-tax returns, yet the prosecution neither explained its exclusion nor produced material showing that it was false or incapable of consideration.

Likewise, the prosecution had not shown a prima facie basis for treating the property standing in the mother’s name or the Innova Crysta allegedly owned and financed by the father-in-law as assets beneficially owned or financed by the petitioner.

The Court did not treat these documents as conclusive proof of innocence, but found them to be unimpeachable material directly affecting the foundational calculation.

The absence of incriminating material from the search, the failure to identify a specific misuse of official position, the incomplete investigation nearly four years after registration and the non-filing of a charge-sheet cumulatively demonstrated that the prosecution lacked a sufficiently reliable basis for continuation.

In the present case, the unexplained exclusion of documented agricultural income, the absence of material linking the disputed family assets to the petitioner, the lack of detailed source material and the prolonged inconclusive investigation rendered continuation of the prosecution an abuse of process.

Accordingly, the FIR in Economic Offences Unit P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022 under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was quashed, and Special Case No. 53 of 2022 pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, arising from that FIR, was also quashed.