In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a preliminary inquiry is not a compulsory requirement under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before registering an FIR against a public servant, provided a detailed and credible source report is available.
The Court emphasized that the absence of a preliminary inquiry cannot be the sole ground to quash a corruption case. The bench, consisting of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision, which had quashed an FIR against a public servant for this reason.
“To sum up, this Court has held that in matters of corruption a preliminary enquiry although desirable, but is not mandatory. In a case where a superior officer, based on a detailed source report disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, passes an order for registration of FIR, the requirement of preliminary enquiry can be relaxed,” the Court stated.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the State of Karnataka’s appeal against a Karnataka High Court decision that had quashed proceedings under the PC Act against Sri Channakeshava H.D., an Executive Engineer with BESCOM. The High Court held that the Superintendent of Police (SP) had failed to conduct a preliminary inquiry before the FIR was filed, which, according to the court, indicated a lack of application of mind.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning. The FIR (No. 54/2023) was registered on December 4, 2023, after a detailed source report was submitted to the SP by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on October 5, 2023. The report claimed that Channakeshava had amassed assets disproportionate to his known income to the tune of ₹6.64 crore, accounting for 92.54% excess wealth.
The report included specific allegations of illicit property acquisitions, allegedly held in both his name and those of third parties (benami), suggesting misuse of his position.
“It is prime facie found that Sri Channakeshava H.D. has acquired properties disproportionate to his known source of income... Hence, it is requested to take suitable legal action... by registering a case under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act,” the source report concluded.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Hears Plea Against Allahabad High Court's Controversial Ruling in Minor Sexual Assault Case
The Supreme Court reviewed relevant precedents including Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) and P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970). These cases had previously observed that preliminary inquiries are desirable in corruption cases but are not a statutory requirement.
Citing the recent decision in State of Karnataka v. T.N Sudhakar Reddy, the Court reiterated:
“The necessity of a preliminary inquiry depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case... The term ‘may be made’ underscores that conducting such an inquiry is discretionary in nature and not a mandatory obligation.”
Further, in the case of CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (2021), the Court had clearly stated that a public servant has no inherent right to be heard before the registration of an FIR in a corruption case.
“We are also of the opinion that this is the correct legal position as there is no inherent right of a public servant to be heard at this stage,” the Court noted.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Seeks Detailed Reports from Centre and Bihar Government on Ganga River Encroachments
The Court noted that the SP’s decision to register an FIR was taken after examining the detailed source report, which included relevant financial evidence and indications of benami transactions.
“We have also gone through the order passed by the SP, directing registration of FIR against respondent no.1, which reflects that the SP had passed that order on the basis of material placed before him in the form of the source report,” the Court remarked.
Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA Versus SRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. & ANR.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Mr. Ayush P Shah, Adv. Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. Mr. Mehul Kumar Garg, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Parimal, Adv. Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR
