submitted by the police officer, and if the cognizance offence is made out, then the FIR required to be registered. Thereafter, the FIR as well as preliminary report required to be sent to the S.P. for permission under Section 17 of the P.C. Act. Thereafter, the S.P. required to apply his mind by verifying the preliminary enquiry report, source report as well as the FIR, then should accord permission under the Second Proviso to Section 17 of the P.C. Act. But, here, in this case, the order of the S.P. dated 19.03.2018, reveals that he has suspected the petitioner regarding amazement of the assets and ordered to register the FIR and investigate. The Bhajan Lal's case (supra), squarely applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is without following the mandatory provisions and guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari's case (supra) and Bhajan Lal's case (supra) and the second proviso to Section 17 of P.C. Act. Therefore, the Criminal proceeding cannot be sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the Ramsingh's has case considered Section 17 of the P.C. Act.
