Preliminary Enquiry Not Mandatory’: Supreme Court Restores FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case, Says ‘Detailed Source Report Before SP Sufficient for Registration
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed the entire criminal proceedings initiated against a public servant in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that a preliminary enquiry prior to registration of an FIR is not mandatory when detailed material is already available before a competent authority. It found that the Superintendent of Police had lawfully directed the registration of the FIR based on a source report. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka was allowed, and the High Court’s impugned order was quashed
The Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry, though desirable, is not a mandatory prerequisite for registering an FIR under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, particularly when a superior officer has before them a detailed source report disclosing prima facie evidence of a cognizable offence.
The respondent, Sri Channakeshava H.D., was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited in 1998 and later promoted to Executive Engineer in BESCOM. Allegations emerged that he had accumulated assets grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income during his service tenure. A source report was prepared and submitted on 5 October 2023 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), which led to the issuance of an order by the Superintendent of Police (SP) on 4 December 2023 directing registration of FIR No. 54/2023 under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Subsequently, the respondent approached the Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. The Single Judge held that the SP had issued the order without conducting a preliminary enquiry, thus violating the second proviso to Section 17 of the Act, which mandates that such offences must be investigated only with the order of an SP.
The State of Karnataka, contesting the High Court’s judgement, argued before the Supreme Court that a preliminary enquiry is not a statutory requirement under Sections 13 or 17 of the Act. They relied on the source report, which was said to contain substantial details, serving the purpose of an enquiry. The State further submitted that the SP had duly considered this material before issuing the order to register the FIR.
The respondent's counsel countered by stating that no opportunity had been provided to the officer to explain the allegations, and the FIR had been weaponized to harass the public servant. The argument stated that a proper enquiry would have allowed the respondent to provide clarifications, potentially averting unnecessary criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court noted that while "a preliminary enquiry is desirable in corruption cases, it is not mandatory," referring to previous decisions including Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 and P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595.
The Court examined the contents of the source report, which detailed Channakeshava’s property acquisitions allegedly amounting to Rs. 6.64 crore, constituting 92.54% disproportionate assets relative to known income. The report also suggested the existence of benami properties and noted the likelihood of discovering further illicit assets upon conducting searches at multiple locations.
The Court recorded: "Based on this source report, which is nothing but a kind of preliminary enquiry, an order was passed by the SP directing the registration of an FIR." The Bench also referred to the recent judgment in State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy 2025 SCC OnLine SC 382, which reaffirmed that "a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every case under the PC Act."
The Bench concluded that: "In view of the above, it is clear that preliminary enquiry was not mandated in the present case, considering that detailed information was already there before the SP in the form of the source report."
On the respondent's plea for being heard before FIR registration, the Court cited CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (2021) 18 SCC 135, holding that an accused public servant has no legal right to be heard at the stage of FIR registration. The Court stated: "There is no inherent right of a public servant to be heard at this stage."
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order dated 25 April 2024. It held: "The High Court ought not to have quashed the FIR in the present case."
It added: "Accordingly, we allow this appeal and impugned order dated 25.04.2024 is hereby set aside. Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Senior Advocate; Mr. Nishanth Patil, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Ayush P. Shah, Mr. Arijit Dey, and Mr. Mehul Kumar Garg, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Smarhar Singh, Advocate-on-Record, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate
Case Title: State of Karnataka vs Sri Channakeshava H.D. & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 471
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.16212 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
