S.P. VELUMANI VS ARAPPOR IYAKKAM AND ORS. CASE

S.P. VELUMANI VS ARAPPOR IYAKKAM AND ORS. CASE

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 867 of 2022

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9161 of 2021)

S.P. VELUMANI                              … APPELLANT

VERSUS

ARAPPOR IYAKKAM AND ORS.          … RESPONDENTS

J UDGM EN T

    N.V.    RAMANA    , CJI

1. Leave granted.

2. This   appeal   is   filed   against   the   impugned   order   dated

08.11.2021   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Madras   in   Writ

Petition No. 34845 of 2018.  

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this dispute are

as follows: the appellant was a Cabinet Minister in the State

of   Tamil   Nadu   from   2014.   On   11.09.2018,   one   Mr.   R.S.

Bharathi filed a complaint with the Directorate of Vigilance

1

and Anti­Corruption.  He also filed a criminal petition before

the Madras High Court, being Crl.O.P. No. 23428 of 2018.

On   the   very   next   day,   respondent   No.1   filed   a   complaint

before Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti­Corruption

and SP, Anti­Corruption  Bureau, CBI.   As no  action  was

forthcoming  by  the   aforesaid  Authorities,   respondent   No.1

filed a writ petition registered as WP No. 34845 of 2018 before

the High Court seeking, inter alia, a mandamus directing the

Director,   Directorate   of   Vigilance   and   Anti­Corruption   to

register an FIR on the basis of the complaint lodged by him

and to constitute an SIT for the purpose of investigation. It

may be necessary to note that both, the writ petition and

Crl.O.P., were tagged and heard together.

4. Broadly, the allegation against the appellant is that while he

was serving as a Minister, he is alleged to have misused his

powers   to   influence   the   tender   process   and   ensured   that

tenders were awarded to his close aides. 

5. When the aforesaid writ petition was listed for the first time

before  the  High   Court,   the  High   Court   issued   notice   and

2

directed   the   respondents   therein   to   file   their   counter

affidavits. On 18.10.2019, when the aforesaid writ petition

came up for hearing, the High Court passed following order: ­

“13.   In   the   light   of   the   apprehension

expressed   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the

petitioner that the 4th  respondent is one of

the senior Ministers in the Cabinet and the

investigation is being carried by an Officer

who   is   in   the   rank   of   the   Deputy

Superintendent of Police, this Court is of the

considered view that the preliminary enquiry

hereinafter shall be carried on by Ms. Ponni,

IPS, Superintendent of Police, Directorate of

Vigilance   and   Anti­Corruption   and   the

progress   being   made   in   the   preliminary

enquiry, shall be monitored by the Director

of Vigilance and Anti­Corruption.

14.   The   Director   of   Vigilance   and   AntiCorruption shall file the Status Report as to

the progress being made in the preliminary

enquiry,   with   supporting   documents   in

sealed cover for perusal of this Court.”

6. Accordingly, on 01.11.2019, a status report was produced

before the High Court.  On perusal of the aforesaid report, the

High Court granted time to complete the preliminary enquiry.

  

7. On 16.12.2019, the Investigating Officer appointed by the

High Court completed the preliminary enquiry and submitted

a final report to the Director of Vigilance and Anti­Corruption.

3

In   view   of   this,   the   High   Court   directed   the   Director   of

Vigilance   and   Anti­Corruption   to   produce   the   aforesaid

enquiry   report   in   a   sealed   cover   before   the   next   date   of

hearing.  

8. It is important to note that in the meanwhile on 17.02.2020,

the State Government filed an application being W.M.P. No.

4747 of 2020 in W.P. No. 34845 of 2018, before the High

Court indicating as under: ­

“9. It is submitted that these facts are being

brought on record and it is the submission of

the petitioner herein that after following all the

process contemplated by Law, the Government

of Tamil Nadu decided to accept the report on

the Preliminary Enquiry, which had come to

the   conclusion   that   the   commission   of

cognizable offence had not been made out.

xxx 

In the light of the above, it is prayed that this

Hon’ble   Court   may   be   pleased   to   take   the

above facts on record and dispose of the writ

petition   as   having   become   infructuous   and

pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble

Court   may   deem   fit   and   proper   in   the

circumstances   of   the   case   and   thus   render

justice.”

4

9. Accordingly,   on   19.02.2020,   the   High   Court   passed   the

following order in the captioned application filed by the State

Government: ­

“3. In the light of the said development, the

petitioner/2nd  respondent in the writ petition

prays for appropriate orders for disposing of

the   writ   petition   as   having   become

infructuous.

4. Dr. V. Suresh learned counsel appearing for

the   1st  respondent/writ   petitioner   prays   for

time to file the counter affidavit.

5.   The   decision   taken   by   the   Vigilance

Commission accepted by the Government shall

be   submitted   before   this   court   in   a   sealed

cover.”

10. As the matter stood thus, there was a change in the political

dispensation   of   the   State   Government.     Interestingly,   the

State,   while   relying   upon   a   CAG   report,   subsequently

recanted   from   its   earlier   stand.   The   High   Court,   without

applying its mind, passed the following order on 19.07.2021:

­

“3. It is submitted on behalf of the State that

the   performance   of   the   contractors   and   the

contracts in general engaged the attention of

the   Comptroller   and   Auditor   General   and

5

adverse comments have been made.  The State

says that it will investigate into the matter to

ensure that those involved are taken to task.

For the purpose of conducting investigation,

the State seeks some time.

4. Let the matter appear in the second week of

October,   2021.     The   State   should   spare   no

effort in getting to the bottom of the matter

and   proceed   against   those   found   to   be

responsible for the irregularities.

5.   Counter­affidavit   may   be   filed   by   the

respondents in the meantime.”

11. Relying on the aforesaid observations, the State registered an

FIR,   being   FIR   No.16/2021   dated   09.08.2021,   against   17

accused   persons,   including   the   appellant   herein   under

Section   120B   r/w   Sections   420   and   409   of   the   IPC   and

Section   13(2)   r/w   Sections   13(1)(c)   and   13(1)(d)   of   the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 109 of the

IPC.  

12. The appellant herein filed an application being W.M.P. No.

24569 of 2021 in the writ petition pending before the High

Court,   seeking   a   copy   of   the   preliminary   Enquiry   Report

dated 18.12.2019 and associated documents submitted by

Ms.   R.   Ponni,   Superintendent   of   Police,   Directorate   of

6

Vigilance and Anti­Corruption as well as the decision taken

by the Vigilance Commission. 

13. The High Court vide impugned order dated 08.11.2021, while

dismissing the appellant’s application, disposed of the entire

case and observed as under: ­

“6. It may do well to decline the request made

by the fourth respondent in W.P. No.34845 of

2018 to make over a copy of the preliminary

report to the fourth respondent immediately.

The   law   has   to   be   allowed   to   take   its   own

course.  Upon completion of the investigation,

a report will no doubt be filed and such report

should be filed within the next ten weeks, be it

in   the  form  of  a  charge­sheet  or  as  a  final

report.  In course of the material being made

over to the fourth respondent under Section

207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if

the preliminary report forms the basis for any

of the charges sought to be framed, a copy of

such preliminary report may be made over to

the fourth respondent and it will also be open

to   the   relevant   criminal   court   to   consider

whether the petitioner may also obtain a copy

thereof.

7. It is made clear that the observations in

course of the orders should not count against

the   fourth   respondent   if,   ultimately   any

charge­sheet were to be filed against him or

any charges framed.   In view of the fact that

the investigation has almost come to an end

and since the charge­sheet or final report is to

be filed within the next ten weeks, no useful

7

purpose   would   be   served   in   keeping   these

petitions alive.

8.   Accordingly,   W.P.   No.34845   of   2018   and

Crl.O.P.   No.23428   of   2018   are   closed.

Consequently, W.M.P. Nos.4747 of 2020 and

24569 of 2021 are closed.”

14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has filed the

present appeal by way of Special Leave.  It may not be out of

place   to   note   that   the   appellant   has   also   filed

Crl.M.P.No.56512/2022 before this Court seeking quashing

of the aforesaid FIR.  

15. The   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant

contended orally and through written submissions as under:

­

(i) That there is no reason for not making over the documents

to   the   appellant   as   the   State   has   not   claimed   that   the

documents are privileged.

(ii) The reliance on two reports by the Comptroller and Auditor

General of India (hereinafter “CAG”) by the State of Tamil

Nadu is misplaced as there is no criminality disclosed in the

aforesaid report.

8

(iii) That FIRs cannot be lodged solely on basis of the CAG

report.

(iv) The appellant should have been given an opportunity to

counter   the   allegations,   and   the   State   could   not   have

registered   the   FIR   in   a   haste,   based   on   certain   general

observations by the High Court.

(v) This case is a clear case of regime revenge wherein change

in political dispensation has resulted in the State recanting

its   initial   position   to   abuse   the   process   against   the

appellant herein.

16. On the contrary, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu has contended that: ­

(i) There is no provision of law which mandates disclosure of

preliminary Enquiry Report before the stage contemplated

under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.  However, the accused will

be given the relied upon documents at the time of framing

charges, wherein he can take appropriate legal recourse.   

(ii) The FIR was filed based on a fresh enquiry conducted in the

light   of   the   CAG   report   and   not   solely   based   on   the

9

preliminary   Enquiry   Report   filed   in   the   aforesaid   writ

petition.

17. At the outset, it may be noted that an application was filed

before us seeking quashing of the subsequent FIR. However,

the   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the

appellant has not pressed the same before us. He has limited

his submissions only to the aspect concerning non­disclosure

of   the   preliminary   enquiry   report   of   Ms.   Ponni,   IPS,

Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and AntiCorruption and the ancillary documents.   Accordingly, we

intend to deal with this aspect alone.

18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusing

the documents available on record, we may note that the

facts of this case are clear. Initially, a private complaint was

filed by respondent No.1 and thereafter, a writ petition was

filed by him seeking investigation into the allegations made in

the complaint.  When the matter was taken up by the High

Court, it directed an enquiry by a responsible officer, Ms.

Ponni,   Superintendent  of  Police,  Director  of  Vigilance  and

Anti­Corruption.     Accordingly,   the   Court   appointed   officer

10

submitted her preliminary enquiry report to the Director of

Vigilance and Anti­Corruption, who in turn submitted a final

report   before   the   High   Court   in   a   sealed   cover.     In   the

meanwhile, the Government took a decision to close the case

based   on   the   aforesaid   report   submitted   by   the   Court

appointed officer.  Rather than deciding this issue, the High

Court adjourned the matter by a month. 

19. However, it appears that due to various reasons, the matter

could not be listed until 19.07.21. In the meanwhile, the

State Government had changed.   In a turn of events, the

State Government went back on their earlier stand to close

the criminal case.  Instead, the State Government submitted

before the High Court that they intended to conduct further

investigation in the aforesaid matter.  

20. In our considered opinion, the High Court has committed a

patent error in not taking the matter to its logical conclusion.

Without considering the material before it, and by merely

relying on the submissions made by the learned counsel for

the State, the High Court has made sweeping observations

11

which are prejudicial to the appellant. It was the High Court

which had ordered that a preliminary enquiry be conducted

and a report be submitted by the special investigating officer.

However, once the enquiry was completed, the High Court

failed to even peruse the said report. Rather, the High Court

left   the   decision   completely   in   the   hands   of   the   State

Government.   Such an approach, as adopted by the High

Court in the present matter, cannot be countenanced in law. 

21. It is a settled principle that the State cannot blow hot and

cold at the same time. When the State Government changed

its stand, the High Court neither provided the appellant an

opportunity   to   defend   himself,   nor   sought   a   reasoned

justification from the State for having turned turtle. Although

the   High   Court   directed   the   appellant   to   file   a   counter

affidavit   in   the   writ   proceedings,   the   State   hastened   to

register the aforesaid FIR on 09.08.2021. 

22. It is noteworthy that the initial affidavit filed by the State was

categorical that they did not intend to pursue action against

the   appellant   herein.   However,   the   subsequent   change   of

12

stand by the State clearly contradicts the expectation brought

about by the initial affidavit. The principles of natural justice

demanded that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to

defend his case based on the material that had exonerated

him initially, which was originally accepted by the State. 

23. Therefore,   the   only   issue   which   requires   this   Court’s

consideration is whether the appellant herein is entitled to

the   preliminary   report   in   the   present   facts   and

circumstances. 

24. Learned counsel for the State has contended that the accused

would   be   entitled   to   access   the   report   only   after   the

Magistrate takes cognizance in terms of Section 207 of the

CrPC.  He has relied on In Re: Criminal Trials Guidelines

Regarding   Inadequacies   and   Deficiencies   v.   State   of

Andhra Pradesh & Others, (2021) 10 SCC 598 to contend

that the accused is entitled to seek documents only in terms

of   Section   207   of   the   CrPC   and   any   production   of   the

documents   beyond   the   ambit   of   aforesaid   section,   is

untenable in law. 

13

25. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant has

distinguished   the   present   case   on   the   fact   that   the

subsequent FIR was filed due to direct judicial interference. 

26. We   may   note   that   the   contention   of   the   State   may   be

appropriate   under   normal   circumstances   wherein   the

accused is entitled to all the documents relied upon by the

prosecution after the Magistrate takes cognizance in terms of

Section   207   of   CrPC.   However,   this   case   is   easily

distinguishable   on   its   facts.   Initiation   of   the   FIR   in   the

present case stems from the writ proceedings before the High

Court, wherein the State has opted to re­examine the issue in

contradiction of their own affidavit and the preliminary report

submitted   earlier   before   the   High   Court   stating   that

commission of cognizable offence had not been made out.  It

is in this background we hold that the mandate of Section

207 of CrPC cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to

cause serious violation of the rights of the appellant­accused

as well as to the principles of natural justice. 

14

27. Viewed from a different angle, it must be emphasized that

prosecution by the State ought to be carried out in a manner

consistent with the right to fair trial, as enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution. 

28. When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which

bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary

investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to

have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a

sealed cover. 

29. In   view   of   the   aforesaid   discussion,   and   taking   into

consideration   the   peculiar   facts   of   the   instant   case,

particularly   the   fact   that   the   High   Court   had   ordered   an

enquiry   and   obtained   a   report   without   furnishing   a   copy

thereof to the appellant and unceremoniously closed the writ

petition,   we   deem   it   appropriate   to   issue   the   following

directions: ­

a. The High Court is directed to supply a copy of the report

submitted   by   Ms.   R.   Ponni,   Superintendent   of   Police

along with the other documents to the appellant herein. 

15

b. Writ Petition No. 34845 of 2018 and Crl.O.P. No. 23428

of 2018 are restored on the file of the High Court of

Madras.

c. The High Court is directed to dispose of the cases on

their own merit, uninfluenced by any observation made

herein. 

d. Although  the  prayer  for  quashing  of the FIR  was not

orally pressed before this Court, however, the appellant is

granted   liberty   to   seek   appropriate   remedy   before   the

High Court.

30. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of on the above terms.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 

...........................CJI.

(N.V. RAMANA)

        ...........................J.

(KRISHNA MURARI)

...........................J.

(HIMA KOHLI)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 20, 2022.

16