The Supreme Court has ruled that a preliminary inquiry is not a mandatory prerequisite for registering a First Information Report (FIR) against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The decision makes it clear that accused officials cannot claim a right to a preliminary inquiry before corruption charges are formally registered.
The Court emphasized that while a preliminary inquiry can be useful in certain cases, it is neither an absolute requirement nor a vested right of the accused. The ruling reinforces that when the information available indicates the commission of a cognizable offence, authorities can proceed with registering an FIR without delay.
Case Background
The ruling came in response to an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka after the High Court quashed an FIR against a public servant accused of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Karnataka Lokayukta Police had initially registered the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but the High Court intervened, leading to the state’s appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Question
The central issue before the Court was whether a preliminary inquiry was mandatory before filing an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act or whether a source information report could serve as a sufficient basis for proceeding with the case.
Arguments & Supreme Court’s Stand
The State argued that when a source information report clearly discloses a cognizable offence, a preliminary inquiry is unnecessary. It pointed out that the Superintendent of Police had already assessed the report and determined a prima facie case.
The respondent, however, relied on the Lalita Kumari v. State of UP case, arguing that a preliminary inquiry was crucial in corruption cases to prevent baseless allegations.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that Lalita Kumari did not mandate preliminary inquiries in corruption cases but left the decision to the investigating agency, depending on the facts of each case. The Court reaffirmed the precedent set in CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, which held that a preliminary inquiry is not a legal right of the accused if the available information already points to a cognizable offence.
The Court further noted that if a preliminary inquiry is conducted, its scope remains limited to determining whether the information suggests a cognizable offence—it does not extend to verifying the truthfulness of allegations.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the FIR against the respondent, ruling that the source information report in this case contained sufficient details on asset and income discrepancies to serve as a preliminary inquiry itself.
With this decision, the Court has reinforced that procedural hurdles should not become shields for public servants facing corruption allegations, ensuring that investigations can proceed without unnecessary legal obstacles.