Supreme Court Adjourns Jharkhand Govt's Plea Against CBI Probe Into Mining Case

The Supreme Court today (November 12) adjourned by two weeks the plea of Jharkhand Government challenging the High Court's order for a CBI investigation into alleged illegal stone mining and attack on protesting villagers and complainant in Sahibganj district

The case involves alleged close associates of the incumbent Chief Minister of Jharkhand Hemant Soren. The CBI has filed an FIR against the accused persons under various Sections of Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, SC/ST Act and Jharkhand Mines & Minerals Concession Rules, 2004.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the challenge to the Jharkhand High Court which in February dismissed the Government's plea for quashing the FIR registered by the CBI without taking the consent of the State Government to proceed with the investigation. 

Today, the bench adjourned the matter by two weeks on the request of the counsels. Sr Adv Kapil Sibal is representing the State of Jharkhand , while the CBI is represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati. 

Notably, the Court issued notice in the matter on May 3 and restrained the CBI from filing a final report/chargesheet till the next date of hearing. The CBI was however allowed to continue with the investigation. 

What Happened Before The High Court? 

Before the High Court, a writ petition under Article 226 was filed by the State of Jharkhand through the Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 

The relief sought by the government was the quashing of the FIR registered against police officials by the CBI on an earlier order the High Court on August 18, 2023 as it was not registered with the consent of the State Government as per S. 6 of Delhi Special police Establishment Act, 1946. 

S.6 provides that the extension of the jurisdiction of the special police establishment as under S.5 would be applicable to other states only upon the consent of the State Government. 

The government had also sought a stay on further investigation by the CBI.  

Notably, the case reached High Court after the complainant alleged that the accused persons attacked the villagers in the area protesting against the illegal mining. In July 2022 the CJM of Sahibanj passed an order under section 156 (3) for registration of FIR but even thereafter the FIR was not registered and thereupon complaint made to the learned Court below being ST/SC PS Case No. 6/22 was registered against the accused persons.

The complainant then filed a writ before the High Court for a direction upon the State of Jharkhand to handover the investigation of the case being ST/SC PS case No. 06/22 dated 01.12.2022 to CBI. 

However, on August 17, the complainant filed another application to withdrawal of the petition. The Court was informed that the said petition was not filed by the complainant in question as he was in jail and is thus frivolous. 

The High Court refused to allow the withdrawal of the petition and passed the following order on August 18, 2023 - 

" It would be sufficiently served if Director, Central Bureau of Investigation is directed to initiate a preliminary enquiry into the conduct of the accused persons including this petitioner as he has sought to withdraw the writ petition on Vakalatnama filed by a new advocate by obtaining NOC and in view of that the prayer made by the petitioner with regard to enquiry through the Registrar General will also be justified. Thus, preliminary enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with law and would be concluded as early as possible within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order".

The High Court in its impugned  judgment  addressed the main issue of what is meant by wordings 'preliminary enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with law' as stated in the August 18 Order. 

To answer the above, the Court made the following relevant observations : 

"In a case where relevant information regarding prima facie allegation disclosing a cognizable offence is available, the officer recording the F.I.R. can proceed against the accused on the basis of the information without conducting a preliminary enquiry." 

The Court referred to the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Another v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T. H. Vijayalakshmi and Another which held that it is not mandatory to hold a preliminary enquiry in all cases before registering an F.I.R. against a public official in the matter involving the possession of disproportionate asset.

The Court noted that two principles emerge from the Vijaylakshmi case : (1) a preliminary enquiry is registered when information (received from a complaint or "source information") after verification indicates serious misconduct on part of a public servant but is not enough to justify the registration of a regular case; and

(2) when the information available or after its secret verification reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, a regular case has to be registered instead of a preliminary enquiry being resorted to necessarily. 

It also clarified that the scope of a preliminary enquiry is not to check the veracity of the information received, but only to scrutinize whether it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

Reliance was also placed on Para 9.1 of the CBI Mannual which says that a preliminary enquiry is required only if the information (whether verified or unverified) does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. 

The Court thus concluded that 'preliminary enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with law' would mean that the CBI can proceed with investigation if it has obtained a material pertaining to commission of cognizable offence and tick marks the test laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others.  

In Lalita Kumari, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that if the information received discloses the commission of cognizable offence, at the outset, no preliminary enquiry would be required. 

Case Details : STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SLP(Crl) No. 5595/2024 Diary No. 16472 / 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order