Supreme Court: FIR Against Public Servant Can Be Registered Without Preliminary Inquiry Under Prevention of Corruption Act

The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta, emphasized that while a preliminary inquiry may be desirable in certain cases, it is not an essential prerequisite for initiating a criminal case under the PC Act. The Court stated that the purpose of a preliminary inquiry is not to assess the truthfulness of the information received but to determine whether the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The necessity of such an inquiry depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and is at the discretion of the investigating agency.

Case Background

The ruling came in an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against a Karnataka High Court decision that had quashed an FIR against a public servant accused in a disproportionate assets case. The Karnataka Lokayukta Police had registered an FIR under Sections 13(1)(b) and 12 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court had set aside the FIR, prompting the State to approach the Supreme Court.

Legal Issue

The key question before the Court was whether a preliminary inquiry was mandatory before registering an FIR under the PC Act or whether a source information report could serve as a substitute for such an inquiry.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

The State of Karnataka contended that a preliminary inquiry is not required when the source information report already discloses a cognizable offence. It further argued that the Superintendent of Police had assessed the case and found prima facie evidence of corruption.

On the other hand, the respondent-public servant cited Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, arguing that a preliminary inquiry is necessary in corruption cases to prevent frivolous complaints.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s ruling and reinstated the FIR. In its judgment, authored by Justice Mehta, the Court reiterated the principles established in CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, holding that an accused cannot claim a preliminary inquiry as a right when the information received discloses a cognizable offence.

The Court also found the respondent’s reliance on Lalita Kumari to be misplaced, clarifying that while the judgment recognized the desirability of a preliminary inquiry in certain cases, it did not make it mandatory in corruption cases. Instead, the necessity of an inquiry is left to the discretion of the investigating agency based on the facts of each case.

Further, the Court ruled that a detailed source information report could substitute for a preliminary inquiry if it provides sufficient details about the alleged offence. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the report contained a thorough breakdown of the respondent’s assets and income discrepancies, making a separate preliminary inquiry unnecessary.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal and reinstated the FIR against the respondent

Case Title: State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy