Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has held that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that police officials are duty-bound to register an FIR if the information reveals the commission of a cognizable offence.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta set aside a March 4, 2024, judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which had quashed an FIR lodged against T N Sudhakar Reddy by the Lokayukta's Superintendent of Police on the basis of source information related to the alleged possession of disproportionate assets.

Upon a challenge to the High Court's judgment, the bench said, "We are of the opinion that the High Court erred in concluding that the FIR was liable to be quashed on account of omission to conduct a preliminary inquiry".

The high court had stated that the December 4, 2023 order by the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, for lodging the FIR was directly passed under Section 17 of the PC Act, violating the mandatory provisions.

"We are of the opinion that the High Court gravely erred while imposing unwarranted fetters on the investigation agency in corruption cases by carving out a framework of administrative hurdles which may have the potential of incapacitating law enforcement agencies. By mandating elaborate pre-investigation procedures and creating unwarranted procedural check dams, the High Court’s approach has the potential to render the effectiveness of law enforcement nugatory," the bench said.

The court, however, clarified that Section 17 of the PC Act relates specifically to the investigation process and not to the initial act of registering an FIR, which is governed by the provisions of the CrPC.

"Hence, it places limitations only on the investigation; it does not impede the fundamental duty of the law enforcement agency to record and register an FIR for cognisable offences," the bench said.

The court emphasised that a 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 cognisable offence, the preliminary inquiry may be avoided," the bench said.

The court also stated that, 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 cognisable 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. A composite order to register the FIR and conduct an investigation aligns with the statutory framework of the CrPC and the PC Act," the bench said.

At the relevant time, the officer was posted as Deputy General Manager (Vigilance)/Executive Engineer (Electrical) at BESCOM, Bengaluru, Vigilance Squad, Bangalore.

The FIR was lodged for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) and Section 12 read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act for possessing assets worth over Rs 3.81 crore, almost 90.72% more than his known sources of income.

His counsel contended that the Superintendent of Police acted in gross violation of the law while issuing an order to the Deputy Superintendent of Police to register an FIR, as a preliminary inquiry in ‘corruption cases’ is a condition precedent for the registration of an FIR.

Relying upon the 2014 Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari Vs State of UP, the court reiterated that conducting a preliminary inquiry is not sine qua non for registering a case against a public servant accused of corruption.

Conducting a preliminary inquiry is not an absolute mandate of law in cases concerning offences under the PC Act, it said.

The initiation of criminal proceedings requires information that details the commission of an offence, whether cognisable or not, it added.

"While a preliminary inquiry is desirable in certain categories of cases, including those under the PC Act, it is neither a vested right of the accused nor a mandatory pre-requisite for the registration of a criminal case. The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity of the information received, but merely to ascertain whether the said information reveals the commission of a cognizable offence," the bench said.

The scope of such an inquiry is naturally narrow and limited, aimed at preventing unnecessary harassment while simultaneously ensuring that genuine allegations of a cognisable offence are not stifled arbitrarily, it said.

"The determination of whether a preliminary inquiry is necessary or not will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case," the bench said.

The court pointed out that Section 17 of the PC Act and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure only outline the procedure for the investigation of offences. Therefore, as a necessary corollary, Section 154 will be applicable for the registration of an FIR in relation to offences punishable under the PC Act.

The court stated that if the officer in charge of a police station can direct the registration of an FIR under Section 154, then, as a natural corollary, by virtue of Section 36 CrPC, superior officers are equally competent to issue such directions for the registration of an FIR.

The court further clarified that if the information reveals the commission of a cognisable offence, police officials are duty-bound to register an FIR, except in cases where individual reputation and relations are at stake, wherein it is advisable to conduct a preliminary inquiry.

The purpose of a fair investigation is to ensure that the accused is afforded all the rights guaranteed under the law. As a corollary, an investigation, which is expected to be fair, must focus on collecting evidence that leads to the right conclusion and nothing else, the bench said.

"A fair investigation cannot be interpreted to cater to the accused only; rather, it must be such that the entire investigation process has the backing of the law and the due procedure established therein. Thus, the ambit of a fair investigation tethers procedural safeguards in order to remain immune from arbitrary actions of individual investigators," the court said.

The bench allowed the appeal and restored the FIR, which is pending before the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.

Case Title: State of Karnataka Vs T N Sudhakar Reddy