Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For FIR In Prevention of Corruption Cases
Supreme Court rules that a preliminary inquiry by the SP is not mandatory before registering an FIR for disproportionate assets under the PC Act, especially when a detailed source report exists.
The Supreme Court of India, heard an appeal by the State of Karnataka challenging an order of the Karnataka High Court that had quashed proceedings against the respondent for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The core issue before the Apex Court was whether the lack of a preliminary inquiry by the Superintendent of Police (SP) before ordering the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for disproportionate assets warranted the quashing of the proceedings.
The respondent (public servant) was accused of having illegal wealth, leading to the registration of an FIR based on a source report submitted to the SP. Despite the SP issuing an order of registering the FIR, the High Court quashed the FIR, opining that the absence of a preliminary inquiry by the SP indicated a lack of application of mind. Aggrieved by which the State of Karnataka appealed, arguing that a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in corruption cases is desirable but not mandatory, especially when the SP has considered relevant materials like a detailed source report.
The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's order, reiterated that while a preliminary inquiry in corruption cases is desirable, it is not mandatory. The Apex Court observed that the second proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act does not mandate a preliminary inquiry. Referring to its previous judgments in Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and State of Karnataka vs T.N Sudhakar Reddy, the Court emphasized that the necessity of a preliminary inquiry depends on the specific facts of each case and is discretionary.
The Court held that if a superior officer, upon considering a detailed and well-reasoned source report that prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, orders the registration of an FIR, a preliminary inquiry may be avoided. The Court also affirmed that an accused public servant has no inherent right to be heard before the filing of an FIR.
In the present case, the Court found that the SP had indeed passed the order for FIR registration based on the source report, which contained detailed information indicating disproportionate assets.
Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: 08-04-2025
Comments