The bench also clarified the purpose of a preliminary inquiry, stating “The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is not to assess the truthfulness of the information but to determine whether it indicates the commission of a cognizable offence.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before filing a First Information Report (FIR) against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The court clarified that an accused person cannot demand a preliminary inquiry before an FIR is registered in corruption-related cases.
The Supreme Court stated “It is clear that a preliminary inquiry is not essential for registering a case against a public servant accused of corruption. While such an inquiry may be beneficial in certain cases, it is neither a right of the accused nor a mandatory step before filing a criminal case.”
The court further explained that while a preliminary inquiry is not compulsory, it may sometimes be advisable to help determine if the case involves a cognizable offence. However, it depends on the specific facts of the case.
The bench also clarified the purpose of a preliminary inquiry, stating “The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is not to assess the truthfulness of the information but to determine whether it indicates the commission of a cognizable offence.”
Emphasizing its limited scope, the Supreme Court added:
“The scope of such inquiry is naturally narrow and limited to prevent unnecessary harassment while simultaneously ensuring that genuine allegations of a cognizable offence are not stifled arbitrarily. Thus, the determination, whether a preliminary inquiry is necessary or not will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case.”
Background
The ruling came while hearing an appeal by the State of Karnataka against a High Court (HC) decision that had quashed an FIR filed against a public servant. The case involved disproportionate assets and was registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly under Sections 13(1)(b), 12, and 13(2).
The High Court had canceled the FIR, which led the State of Karnataka to approach the Supreme Court.
The main question before the Supreme Court was whether a preliminary inquiry was mandatory before filing an FIR in corruption cases or if a source information report was enough to initiate proceedings.
The State of Karnataka argued that since the source information report already disclosed a cognizable offence, a preliminary inquiry was unnecessary. It also stated that the Superintendent of Police had found a prima facie case against the accused.
On the other hand, the public servant (accused) referred to the Lalita Kumari case, arguing that a preliminary inquiry was necessary in corruption cases to prevent false and baseless complaints.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s decision and overturned its ruling, referring to the CBI vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi case.
The court clarified:
“The accused cannot demand a preliminary inquiry when the source information reveals a cognizable offence.”
It further stated that the public servant’s argument based on the Lalita Kumari case was incorrect, as that judgment left the decision of conducting a preliminary inquiry to the discretion of the investigating agency.
ALSO READ: [BREAKING] Money Laundering Case| Delhi Court Rejects Satyendar Jain’s Final Bail Plea
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies can directly register an FIR against a public servant accused of corruption if the available information discloses a cognizable offence. A preliminary inquiry may be conducted at the discretion of the investigators but is not a legal requirement.
Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS T.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY
