Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), particularly when a superior officer determines that the case prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. This decision came while allowing an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the Karnataka High Court’s judgment, which had quashed an FIR against a Deputy General Manager (Vigilance)/Executive Engineer (Electrical) at BESCOM, who was accused of amassing disproportionate assets worth over Rs. 3 crores.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a source information report submitted on November 10, 2023, by a Police Inspector of the Karnataka Lokayukta. The Superintendent of Police, after examining the report, issued an order on December 4, 2023, directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police to register a case under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) and Section 12 of the PC Act. An FIR was registered on the same day. Aggrieved by the FIR, the respondent moved a criminal petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Karnataka High Court, seeking its quashing. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, prompting the State to appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta held: “The preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every case under the PC Act. If a superior officer is in seisin of a source information report which is both detailed and well-reasoned and such that any reasonable person would be of the view that it prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the preliminary inquiry may be avoided.” The Court criticized the High Court’s approach, noting that by mandating elaborate pre-investigation procedures, it had created unwarranted procedural obstacles that could render law enforcement ineffective.

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court extensively examined precedents, including Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, where a Constitution Bench had held that registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information received discloses a cognizable offence. The Court reiterated: "The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence." Further, referring to State of Telangana v. Managipet Sarveshwar Reddy, the Court emphasized: “The preliminary inquiry warranted in Lalita Kumari is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. There are no fixed parameters on which such an inquiry can be said to be conducted.”

Competence of the Superintendent of Police

The Court also addressed the powers of the Superintendent of Police under Section 17 of the PC Act. It observed:

 “On a harmonious reading of the provisions of the PC Act and the CrPC, it is manifest that the Superintendent of Police is competent to direct the registration of an FIR if he has information about the commission of a cognizable offence punishable under the PC Act.”

“The former is also competent to simultaneously direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police to register an FIR for the offences under the PC Act, with the understanding that the subsequent investigation will be subject to the restrictions outlined in Section 17 of the PC Act.”

The Court held that the High Court erred in concluding that the Superintendent of Police must first direct the registration of an FIR and only afterward issue an order for investigation. The Court clarified that Section 17 of the PC Act pertains to the investigation process, not the act of registering an FIR, which is governed by the CrPC.

Key Findings and Conclusion

1. Preliminary Inquiry Not Always Mandatory: The Supreme Court ruled that a preliminary inquiry is not a mandatory requirement in every case under the PC Act. If the source information report sufficiently discloses a cognizable offence, an FIR can be registered without further inquiry.

2. Authority of the Superintendent of Police: The Court affirmed that a Superintendent of Police has the power to direct both the registration of an FIR and the initiation of an investigation under Section 17 of the PC Act.

3. High Court’s Error in Interpretation: The Court criticized the High Court’s imposition of unnecessary procedural requirements, which could impede corruption investigations.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment and restored the FIR. It concluded: “For the above reasons, we quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka…and restore the FIR.”

Cause Title: State Of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy

Case No: Crimial Appeal No. 5001 OF 2024

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Sandeep Mehta

[Read/Download order]