Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Before FIR in Corruption Cases Against Public Servants: Supreme Court [Read Order]

The Supreme Court of India ruled that a preliminary enquiry is not a mandatory precondition for registering an FIR against a public servant accused of corruption, provided the source information is credible and sufficiently detailed.

The case arose from a source report filed by a police inspector of the Karnataka Lokayukta in November 2023, alleging that T.N. Sudhakar Reddy, an employee of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (KPTCL), had amassed disproportionate assets worth Rs. 3.81 crore, around 90.72% more than his known income.

Based on this report, the Superintendent of Police issued a composite order in December 2023 directing the registration of an FIR and authorising investigation under Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2), and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Read More: Can You Claim HRA Exemption Under New Tax Regime and With Home Loan? Explained

Worried About SME IPO Pitfalls? Gain Clarity with This Advanced Course! Register Now

Reddy challenged the FIR before the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), arguing that no preliminary enquiry had been conducted before the FIR was registered, rendering it invalid. The High Court agreed and quashed the FIR, holding that a preliminary enquiry was necessary in such cases.

The State of Karnataka appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the source report itself served as a sufficient basis for action. The State relied on precedents such as Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) and State of Telangana v. Managipet (2019) to argue that preliminary enquiry is discretionary and not a legal requirement in corruption cases, particularly when the information prima facie discloses a cognizable offence.

Read More: Royalty Not a Tax, 18% GST Payable on Mining Lease Payments: Patna HC [Read Order]

The respondent counsel countered that the absence of a preliminary enquiry before FIR registration violated established principles and cited P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970) and Charansingh v. State of Maharashtra (2021) in support of the claim that corruption allegations must be handled cautiously to avoid unnecessary harm to reputation.

Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act empowers certain police officers to investigate offences under the Act, while Lalita Kumari clarified that registration of an FIR is mandatory when information received clearly discloses a cognizable offence. It also held that a preliminary enquiry is necessary only in exceptional situations, such as matrimonial disputes or cases involving doctors.

Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course - Enroll Today

Read More: Investments that Help You Save Income Tax Under Section 80C

The bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta held that the source report in this case was detailed and provided credible grounds for initiating an investigation. They observed that the Superintendent of Police had applied his mind and acted within the scope of Section 17 by issuing a reasoned composite order directing both FIR registration and investigation.

The court held that mandating a preliminary enquiry in all corruption cases would undermine anti-corruption efforts and delay the investigative process. The court explained that the law does not prescribe a rigid procedural sequence when credible evidence of wrongdoing is available. The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s ruling and restored the FIR registered against the respondent.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates