A Complainant Can Become An Accused If He Demands Bribe: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Supplementary Chargesheet Against Original Informant

“Merely because the petitioner was earlier a complainant cannot shield him from criminal liability when new incriminating material emerges” —  In a legally significant ruling that pierces through procedural smokescreens often raised by complainants turned accused, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, upholding the validity of a supplementary challan filed against the original complainant himself.

In CRM-M-46237-2025, the petitioner, who had earlier played the role of whistleblower in a corruption case, sought the quashing of the FIR registered on 07.07.2023, as well as the supplementary report dated 06.03.2025, on the ground that he had only approached the authorities to expose corruption and could not be turned into an accused without formal sanction from the Magistrate.

But the Court held firmly that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC does not require prior permission from the Magistrate, and new evidence can always alter roles in a criminal case. The Court emphasized that “no accused has any right to object to further investigation, and it does not require wiping out of the earlier report.”

“There Is No Bar In Law To Investigating A Complainant If He Himself Seeks Undue Advantage”: Court Finds Prima Facie Offence Under Section 8 of PC Act

At the heart of the dispute was whether a private individual, who was the original complainant, can be booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the absence of a public servant. The petitioner had argued that he merely acted as a conduit on behalf of someone else and was cooperating with authorities.

Rejecting this argument, the Court made a categorical pronouncement:

“A person offering a bribe need not necessarily be a public servant to attract the provisions of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.”

Justice Harpreet Singh Bedi held that Section 8 criminalizes the act of giving or promising to give undue advantage, regardless of whether a public servant is clearly identified or not. The Court observed that prima facie, the allegations disclosed that the petitioner had demanded bribe on behalf of a Judicial Officer, thus falling within the scope of Section 8.

“Right Against Self-Incrimination Arises Only After A Person Becomes Accused”: Article 20(3) Not Violated

One of the more novel arguments raised was that of protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, alleging that the materials supplied by the petitioner (as complainant) were now being used to incriminate him.

The Court decisively dismissed this plea, holding: “Any material supplied by the petitioner prior to him attaining the status of an accused would not amount to self-incrimination under Article 20(3).”

The petitioner was formally accused only upon filing of the supplementary challan on 06.03.2025. Therefore, the constitutional protection could not retrospectively apply to actions performed in a different legal capacity.

“Supplementary Challan Can Be Filed Without Magistrate's Permission When Fresh Evidence Surfaces”: Further Investigation Not Subordinate To Earlier Reports

The High Court addressed the misconception that further investigation is invalid without the court’s leave, clarifying that Section 173(8) CrPC empowers police to conduct further investigation even after a chargesheet has been filed. The Court cited Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) and reiterated:

“Further investigation is a continuation of previous investigation. It is permissible without the need to nullify or overwrite the earlier report.”

In this case, the original FIR was against a public official, and the petitioner appeared to be cooperating. However, after examination of digital evidence and recordings, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) discovered the active role of the petitioner in negotiating and facilitating bribes, leading to the supplementary challan.

The Court also noted that the Investigating Officer had the discretion to file the supplementary chargesheet directly, and it was for the Magistrate to examine the totality of evidence—including both the initial and supplementary challans.

“Whistleblower Status Doesn’t Grant Immunity From Criminal Acts”: Plea Dismissed With Costs

The Court ultimately held that the filing of the FIR and supplementary report did not suffer from any procedural illegality or constitutional infirmity. Since fresh, credible material had come to light during investigation, the law permitted the police to alter the trajectory of prosecution—even if it meant prosecuting the initial complainant.

The petition seeking quashing of the FIR and supplementary chargesheet was accordingly dismissed.

Date of Decision: 26.08.2025