State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

Why this case matters

Petitions to quash an FIR in India routinely cite Bhajan Lal. In 1990 a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, hearing the State of Haryana’s appeal against a High Court order that had quashed a corruption FIR against a former Chief Minister, collected the earlier case law on the High Court’s powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC and set out seven categories of cases in which those powers may be used. It paired them with a note of caution that the power is to be used sparingly.

The facts

Ch. Bhajan Lal had been Chief Minister of Haryana from 1982 to 1987, and when the case began he was the Union Minister for Environment and Forests. In the 1987 Assembly election his wife, Smt. Jasma Devi, defeated Dharam Pal, and Ch. Devi Lal became Chief Minister. On 12 November 1987 Dharam Pal gave Ch. Devi Lal a complaint alleging that Bhajan Lal had built up properties worth crores of rupees, much of it benami in the names of relatives, far beyond his known means. The complaint was marked to the Director General of Police and then to the Superintendent of Police, Hissar, who on 21 November 1987 directed that a case be registered and investigated. The Station House Officer registered a case that day under Sections 161 and 165 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and took up the investigation himself.

Bhajan Lal filed a writ petition. On 8 September 1988 a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the entire proceedings, including the FIR, and ordered Dharam Pal to pay his costs. The State appealed.

The question before the Court

When may a High Court, using its writ jurisdiction or its inherent power, quash an FIR or a criminal proceeding at the very start, before the police have investigated?

What the Court said

The Court began with the rule of law:

In our democratic polity under the Constitution based on the concept of ‘Rule of Law’ which we have adopted and given to ourselves and which serves as an aorta in the anatomy of our democratic system, THE LAW IS SUPREME.

[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 270 · Open at this page

On the duty to register a case when information about a cognizable offence is given, it read Section 154(1) of the CrPC this way:

Evidently, the non-qualification of the word “information” in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, ‘reasonableness’ or ‘credibility’ of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case.

[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 279 · Open at this page

The seven categories

After reviewing the earlier decisions, the Court set out the categories, in its own words:

… we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengence [sic] on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 305–306 · Open at this page

It followed the list at once with a note of caution:

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.

[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 306 · Open at this page

Applying this to the complaint against Bhajan Lal:

Reverting to the present case, the allegations made in the complaint, in our considered opinion, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence justifying the registration of a case and an investigation thereon and this case does not fall under any one of the categories of cases formulated above calling for the exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. itself.

[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 307 · Open at this page

And on the argument that the complaint came from a political rival:

Even assuming that Dharam Pal has laid the complaint only on account of his personal animosity, that, by itself, will not be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected.

[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 308 · Open at this page

What the Court decided

The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment quashing the FIR, and set aside the order of costs against Dharam Pal. But it quashed the investigation itself, because the Station House Officer who had taken it up was not an officer authorised to investigate the case under Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the State Government to direct a fresh investigation, if it wished, by a competent police officer in strict compliance with Section 5A(1), and with no order as to costs.

Why it still matters

The seven categories are a usual starting point for a quashing petition. Later judgments of the Supreme Court cite the case as 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: Zandu Pharmaceutical Works v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2004), Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013) and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021) all name it, and the case map below shows them. Since 1 July 2024, the CrPC provisions it reads, Sections 154 and 482, are in Sections 173 and 528 of the BNSS, so check the new section when you rely on it today.

How lawyers use it

• In petitions to quash an FIR, a complaint or a criminal proceeding, by placing the facts within one of the seven categories.
• To answer such a petition, by relying on the note of caution and on the rule that the Court does not test the truth of the allegations at that stage.
• Where the police refuse to register an FIR because they doubt the information, read with the Section 154 passage.
• Where the accused says the complaint was made out of personal or political enmity.