Prevention Of Corruption Act | Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Before Registering FIR Against Public Servant : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before registering an FIR against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, the accused cannot have a vested right to claim preliminary inquiry before FIR registration in corruption cases.

“it is perspicuous that conducting a preliminary inquiry is not sine qua non for registering a case against a public servant who is accused of corruption. While 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 registration of a criminal case.”, the Court observed.

Although a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory when the information discloses a commission of a cognizable offence, the Court said that depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, it may be desirable at the end of the investigating agency to ascertain whether the offence committed is cognizable or not.  

“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 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.”, the Court observed.

The Case

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the State of Karnataka's appeal against the High Court's decision to quash the FIR against the Respondent-Public Servant in connection with assets disproportionate case.

The Karnataka Lokayukta Police registered an FIR against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), specifically under Section 13(1)(b) and Section 12 read with Section 13(2).

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the FIR, leading the State of Karnataka to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue

The moot question before the Court was whether a preliminary inquiry was mandatory before registering an FIR under the PC Act, or whether the source information report could substitute for a preliminary inquiry.

Arguments

Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory if the source information report discloses a cognizable offence. It further contended that the Superintendent of Police applied his mind and found a prima facie case based on the source information report.

Opposing the State's arguments, the Respondent-Public Servant citing Lalita Kumari v. State of UP's case argued that a preliminary inquiry is mandatory in corruption cases to avoid frivolous complaints.

Decision

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta reiterated the law laid down in Central Bureau of Investigation vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi's judgment noting that the accused cannot claim the preliminary inquiry as a matter of right when the source of information for FIR registration discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

The Court found the Respondent's reliance on Lalita Kumari's case as misplaced because Lalita Kumari's case did not mandate the preliminary inquiry in corruption-related matters but left it to the discretion of the investigating agency based on the facts or circumstances of the case when the source of information does not disclose the commission of a cognizable case.

“It was held that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory if the information received by the police officer/Investigating Agency discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. However, if the preliminary inquiry is conducted, its scope is limited to determine whether the information prima facie reveals commission of a cognizable offence and does not extend to verifying its truthfulness. The necessity of a preliminary inquiry depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. For instance, corruption cases fall into a category where a preliminary inquiry 'may be made'.”, the court observed relying on Lalita Kumari's case.

Further, answering in affirmation that the source information report could substitute for a preliminary inquiry, the Court upon perusing the source information report noted that it was detailed enough to serve as a preliminary inquiry, as it provided a comprehensive breakdown of the respondent's assets and income discrepancies.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the State's appeal and restored the FIR against the Respondent, quashed by the High Court.

Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS T.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance;

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Mr. Ayush P Shah, Adv. Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Adithiya S, Adv. Mr. Mehul Kumar Garg, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. S Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varun Gowda, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mrs. Samina S., Adv. Mr. Abhishekh Singh, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR