Preliminary Enquiry Not Mandatory If Source Report Makes Out Prima Facie Case Of Possessing Disproportionate Assets: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before registering a First Information Report on charges of possessing disproportionate assets to the known sources of income by a government servant if the source report makes out a prima facie case against the accused.A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed a petition filed by D M...
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before registering a First Information Report on charges of possessing disproportionate assets to the known sources of income by a government servant if the source report makes out a prima facie case against the accused.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed a petition filed by D M Padmanabha a Panchayat Development Officer at Kundana Grama Panchayat, his wife and mother-in-law seeking to quash FIR registered against them for offences punishable under section 13(1) (b) R/w Section 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The petitioners had argued that the allegations against petitioner no.1 were that he had acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income and therefore preliminary enquiry was required before registering FIR.
Further, the Superintendent of Police without application of mind has passed an order under Section 17 of the P.C. Act, which is not permissible. The Superintendent of Police has authorised respondent no.1 only to register a case against accused no.1 but FIR has been registered even as against accused nos.2 and 3, who are not government servants.
The prosecution opposed the plea saying the source report submitted by the Inspector of Police is self-explanatory and perusal of the same would go to show that preliminary enquiry was done and details of the properties of the accused had been mentioned in the source report and it was found that the petitioner no.1 7 had acquired 488.5% assets disproportionate to his known source of income. He submits that, if the source report makes out a prima-facie case against the accused, holding of preliminary enquiry is not mandatory.
Findings:
The bench referred to a coordinate bench judgment and said “I am of the view that since the source report submitted by the Inspector of Police contains sufficient material evidencing acquisition of assets by petitioner no.1 disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of 488.5%, respondent no.1 was fully justified in registering FIR against the accused persons and proceeding to investigate the case.”
It rejected the contention of non-application of mind by the police who were granted permission by the Superintendent of Police only to register a case against accused no.1 whereas respondent no.1 had proceeded to register a case even against accused nos.2 and 3, who are not government servants.
The court said “A perusal of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police which is annexed by the advocate for respondent to the statement of objections would go to show that, along with the source report the material which was the basis for preparation of source report was also made available to the Superintendent of Police and after verification of the same, being satisfied that there was a case made out for the investigation for the alleged offences he has proceeded to pass the order in exercise of his power under Section 17 and 18 of the P.C. Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no application of mind by the Superintendent of Police before passing the order.”
Then it held “The principal offences in the present case are under Section 13(1)(b) R/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act which are allegedly committed by accused no.1. The very fact that the Superintendent of Police has granted permission under Section 17 of the P.C. Act to register a case under Section 13(1)(b) and Section 12 of the P.C. Act against accused no.1 and to investigate the said case would go to show that permission is granted to register a case and to investigate the same even as against abettors. Therefore, it cannot be said that registration of FIR against accused nos.2 & 3 is bad in law.”
Further the court opined that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is to be exercised to uphold justice, right wrong and prevent abuse of the process of law. At the stage of investigation, the High Courts are required to be cautious while exercising its inherent powers.
It added “If the First Information Report makes out a prima facie case for cognizable offence, in normal circumstances, there should not be any interference with the investigation. Stalling of the investigation at the initial stage may have an adverse impact and it also may give scope for tampering with the evidence. Therefore, only in exceptional cases, very sparingly, the High Court needs to interfere with the investigation of criminal cases.”
It also said that the High Court should not venture into holding a mini-trial at this stage by evaluating the statements of the charge sheet witnesses and documents produced by the prosecution along with the final report. The orders passed under Sections 227, 239, 245 of Cr.PC 27 and other statutory provisions are subject to scrutiny by this Court, and therefore, it cannot be said that remedies provided under the Code or other statutes are not efficacious remedies.
Dismissing the petition the court said, “I am of the view that a prima facie case for the alleged offences as against the petitioners has been made out by the prosecution, which needs investigation, and therefore, the prayer made by the petitioners cannot be granted.”
Appearance: Senior Advocate M S Bhagavat for Advocate Suvarna Lakshmi M L for petitioner.
Advocate Lethif B for R1,R2
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
Case Title: D M Padmanabha & Others AND The State By Karnataka Lokayuktha & ANR Case No: W.P.No.2413/2024