State of Karnataka vs Sri Channakeshava.H.D. & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

8 April 2025

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 1849 of 2025

Result

Allowed

Bench

Sudhanshu Dhulia, K. Vinod Chandran

Citation

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 608 : 2025 INSC 471

Acts & Sections

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 CrPC

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court erred in quashing the FIR against the respondent no.1-public servant under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in a case of Disproportionate Assets, on the ground that the Superintendent of Police (SP) failed to conduct a preliminary enquiry before passing the orders directing registration of FIR.

Headnote

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(b), 13(2),

17 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Corruption matters against the public servants – Preliminary enquiry, if mandatory:

Held: No – There is no provision for a preliminary enquiry u/ss.13 or 17, PC Act – Second proviso to s. 17, PC Act does not speak of a preliminary enquiry – Though, in matters of corruption against the public servants a preliminary enquiry is desirable, but it is not mandatory – In a case where a superior officer, based on a detailed source report disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, passes an order for registration of FIR, the requirement of preliminary enquiry can be relaxed – In the present case, the preliminary enquiry was not mandated as detailed information was already there before the SP in the form of the source report explaining the reasons for initiation of proceedings giving the details – Thus, the SP had passed the order directing registration of FIR against the respondent no.1 on the basis of material placed before him in the form of the source report – High Court ought not to have quashed the FIR – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 8, 15, 16]

Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The State of Karnataka has presently challenged the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Karnataka High Court where the learned Single Judge has quashed the entire proceedings initiated by the State against respondent no.1 (Sri Channakeshava. H.D.) for offences under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’), in a case of Disproportionate Assets (or DA case as it is called). 3. In the year 1998, respondent no.1 was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmissi

View Subscription Plans →