Punjab and Haryana HC Refuses Fresh Probe Plea by Ex-Minister in Bribery Trap Case
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya dismisses former minister Sunder Sham Arora's plea for de novo investigation by an independent agency in a Vigilance Bureau bribery case.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition by former Punjab minister Sunder Sham Arora seeking a fresh, independent investigation into a bribery case registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, sitting singly, rejected the argument that the probe was tainted because it had been carried out by an officer subordinate to the complainant. The petitioner had originally sought quashing of the FIR, the final report, and a trial court order dismissing his discharge application, but narrowed his prayer during the proceedings to seeking a direction for re-investigation. The court found no evidence of actual bias and held that an investigation cannot be reopened after cognizance has been taken unless a miscarriage of justice is shown.
Bribery Trap Case Reaches the High Court
FIR No.19 was registered on 15.10.2022 at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, FS-I, Punjab at Mohali, under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018. The complaint was lodged by Manmohan Kumar, Assistant Inspector General of Police posted at Vigilance Bureau Flying Squad-1, who stated that Arora, described as a former minister, had visited his home on 14.10.2022 and offered him ₹1 crore to help him in a pending Vigilance Bureau case, with ₹50 lakh to be paid the next day.
On 15.10.2022, a raiding party led by DSP Ajay Kumar intercepted Arora in a car parked near Cosmo Plaza, Zirakpur. According to the final report, ₹50 lakh in cash was recovered from a bag in the presence of witnesses, counted, and sealed. The petitioner's car, mobile phones and CCTV footage of the parking area were also taken into possession. He was arrested and later granted regular bail on 28.03.2023.
The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on 03.12.2022, and the trial court, the Special Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, took cognizance on 12.12.2022. A copy of the challan reached the petitioner only on 10.05.2023, after which he moved an application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. seeking documents relied upon in the report. The trial court allowed this on 27.07.2023.
The Narrowed Prayer: A Direction for Re-Investigation
The petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 03.09.2023, initially sought quashing of the FIR, the final report, and the trial court's order dated 29.08.2023 dismissing Arora's discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. That discharge application had argued that Section 8 of the PC Act was not made out and that the Vigilance Bureau lacked jurisdiction to investigate.
A separate written note dated 16.08.2023, filed before the trial court, raised a fresh ground: that the investigation was biased because it had been conducted by an officer subordinate to the complainant, who also wrote his annual confidential reports. Before the High Court, through an additional affidavit dated 23.12.2023, the petitioner restricted his prayer entirely to seeking a direction for de novo investigation by an independent agency.
By the time arguments were heard, charge had already been framed on 18.09.2023, and six of twenty-five prosecution witnesses had been examined, as stated by the State counsel.
Why the Court Rejected the Bias Argument
Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Cheema and Mr. S.S. Narula, argued that a subordinate officer investigating a complaint filed by his superior could never be objective, and pointed to specific lapses: failure to record the conversation between Arora and the complainant, absence of independent witnesses, and registration of the FIR without independent verification. They relied on H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, (1954) 2 SCC 934.
The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Deepender Singh, argued there was no prayer for re-investigation in the original petition and that the petitioner had never raised the bias objection in either of his two bail applications or in his discharge application before the alleged flaws were pointed out through the written note.
The court agreed with the State on delay, holding that the identity of the complainant and the investigating officer, and the reporting relationship between them, were disclosed in the FIR itself and did not depend on the documents furnished later under the 27.07.2023 order. It found the plea for re-investigation to be “only as an afterthought” raised at a belated stage.
On merits, the court held the argument that a subordinate officer is inherently incapable of investigating his senior's complaint to be “too far fetched to be accepted”. It observed that the law does not bar an investigating officer from probing a complaint filed by a superior, and that no personal bias or wrongdoing had been alleged against the officer concerned, only an assumption of institutional bias.
Precedents on Defective Investigation
The court examined R.A.H. Siguran v. Shankare Gowda, (2017) 16 SCC 126, which revisited H.N. Rishbud and held that once cognizance is taken, a trial cannot be quashed for invalidity of investigation unless the illegality has caused a miscarriage of justice. It also relied on C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, for the proposition that the conclusion of a trial cannot depend solely on the probity of investigation.
Distinguishing the present facts from H.N. Rishbud, the court noted that in that case the investigation had been conducted by an officer not authorised by statute, whereas here the investigating officer faced no such statutory bar. The alleged flaws, it held, were irregularities that did not by themselves establish inherent bias, especially since the allegations against Arora were corroborated by recovered material and recorded witness statements.
The court also