Requirement of preliminary inquiry before directing registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act: Held: 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 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 – Whether a preliminary inquiry is necessary or not will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case – In the present case, the source information report submitted by the Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station comprehensively documents the financial irregularities committed by the respondent and disclosed a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence involving acquisition of disproportionate assets, punishable under the PC Act. [Paras 24, 25, 26, 27, 51]
Validity of a composite order under Section 17 of the PC Act directing registration of FIR and conducting investigation: Held: While interpreting procedural laws like the PC Act, it must be borne in mind that the interpretation should facilitate and not frustrate the investigation of potential criminal activities, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of corruption – The Superintendent of Police is conferred with the responsibility of evaluating source information report(s) and to determine whether the same prima facie warrants further investigation – A conjoint reading of Section 36 with Section 154 of CrPC (corresponding with Sections 30 and 173 of BNSS respectively) would make it clear that if the officer in charge of a police station can direct the registration of an FIR under Section 154, as a natural corollary by virtue of Section 36 CrPC, superior officers, which in the case at hand is the Superintendent of Police, are equally competent to issue such directions for registration of the FIR – High Court erred in holding that the Superintendent of Police must first direct the registration of an FIR and only after it is registered, he would be competent to issue an order for investigation under Section 17 of the PC Act – Since the subordinate police officers are obligated to comply with the orders of the Superintendent of Police, it cannot be argued that he lacked the authority to issue directions under Section 17 of the PC Act simultaneously with the direction to register the FIR – The former interpretation is against the true intent of the PC Act and is liable to be discarded – Hence, the composite order dated 4th December 2023 issued by the Superintendent of Police under Section 17 of the PC Act, directing the registration of the FIR and authorizing investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police is valid and compliant with law. (Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta v. B. Srinivas (2008) 8 SCC 580 relied on) [Paras 40-45, 49, 51]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Adeeba Mujahid, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.