24 November 2016 Corruption >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law  

A petitioner has accused government officials of defying a Supreme Court judgment in a corruption case. The petition alleges that the officials wilfully failed to register a First Information Report (FIR) despite a complaint and a Supreme Court ruling mandating FIR registration in certain corruption cases.

The complaint centres around alleged corruption by two former government ministers. The petitioner claims they abused their positions and misused funds. Citing a previous Supreme Court decision (Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., 2014), the petition argues that an FIR should have been registered based on the complaint.

The respondents, however, maintain they investigated the complaint and found no evidence of wrongdoing. They argue that the Supreme Court judgment doesn't mandate FIR registration in cases without evidence of favouritism or undue benefits. They claim their actions comply with the Court's directives.

The petition delves into legal concepts of contempt of court, highlighting the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish wilful disobedience beyond a reasonable doubt. It emphasizes the quasi-criminal nature of contempt proceedings.

Ultimately, the petition acknowledges the court's discretion and suggests the petitioner pursue the matter through alternative channels if the court isn't convinced of wilful disobedience.

  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988