No chargesheet in 4 years, Patna High Court bins ‘disproportionate assets’ FIR against DSP

“The omission to account for the documented agricultural income of Rs 34.55 lakh, the absence of the detailed source material said to have formed the basis of the FIR, the failure to show a prima facie connection between the petitioner and the disputed family/third-party assets, and the continued inconclusive investigation, when considered together, materially undermine the foundation of the prosecution case,” the court said on August 25.

The ruling pointed out that in matters of corruption, a preliminary enquiry, although desirable, is not mandatory. The requirement of such a preliminary enquiry can be relaxed in a case where a superior officer directs to register an FIR based on a detailed source report disclosing the commission of a cognisable offence.

Justice Praveen Kumar held that the issue was not just the absence of a preliminary enquiry, but the lack of foundational material to prosecute the DSP.

‘Assets 82% over income’

The case arose from an FIR registered in 2022 by the Economic Offences Unit, Bihar, against Rajak based on an anonymous complaint alleging that he had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The alleged disproportionate assets were calculated at Rs 63.79 lakh – 81.9 per cent above his known lawful income, during the checking period from February 10, 2015 to September 5, 2022. The petitioner challenged the FIR, arguing that it was registered without preliminary scrutiny and that certified agricultural income had been wrongly excluded from it and assets belonging to family members were attributed to him.

He also argued that his Rs 34.55 lakh agricultural income for 2020-21 and 2021-22 was supported by government certification and disclosed in his income-tax returns, but it was not considered in calculating the alleged disproportion.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Nilanjan Chatterjee along with advocates Kumaresh Singh, Pragya Priya and others submitted that the very registration of the FIR against the petitioner is bad in law as it was done in a mechanical manner without conducting any preliminary enquiry.

Appearing for the state, Senior Advocate Vishwanath Pd Sinha submitted that though agricultural income is sought to be shown, no agricultural land stands in the name of the petitioner.

It was further submitted that there are no documents on record to suggest that loans were taken by the petitioner’s wife from her father and a friend.

4 years, no chargesheet: Order

The high court observed that the FIR was registered based on an anonymous complaint without preliminary enquiry, and the record did not contain detailed foundational material showing how the alleged disproportionate assets were calculated.

It observed that assets standing in the names of the petitioner’s mother and father-in-law had been attributed to him, but the prosecution failed to show preliminary material establishing his beneficial ownership or financing of those assets.

“The documents relating to agricultural income, the prior departmental disclosures and the documents concerning the third-party vehicle are not being treated as conclusive proof of the petitioner’s innocence. They are, however, material of a nature which directly bears upon the calculation forming the foundation of the FIR,” the court said.

“The opposite parties (state authorities) have not shown, in the counter-affidavit, why the certified agricultural income was excluded or what material connects the disputed family assets to the petitioner,” it added.

The court also noted that nearly four years had passed without a chargesheet, while the investigation remained inconclusive. Though delay alone would not justify quashing, it was relevant given the unresolved foundation of the prosecution case.

The judge held that the issue was not just the absence of a preliminary enquiry, but the lack of foundational material, unexplained exclusion of disclosed agricultural income, and the failure to connect disputed third-party assets to the petitioner.