The Supreme Court has ruled that a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before the registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, if a detailed source report disclosing commission of a cognizable offence is available. The Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order quashing proceedings against a BESCOM officer accused of amassing disproportionate assets.
Case Background
The appeal arose from the order dated April 25, 2024, passed by the Karnataka High Court, which had quashed the FIR against Sri Channakeshava H.D., an Executive Engineer at Bangalore Electricity Supply Corporation (BESCOM), registered under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
According to the prosecution, Channakeshava, who joined Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited in 1998 and was later promoted, had acquired properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. An FIR (No. 54/2023) was registered on December 4, 2023, at the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station based on a source report alleging possession of assets worth ₹6.64 crore—approximately 92.54% more than his known income.
High Court Proceedings
The accused had filed a writ petition in the High Court to quash the FIR, alleging violation of the second proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act. The High Court observed that while the Superintendent of Police (SP) had issued the requisite order before lodging the FIR, no preliminary enquiry had been conducted, and there was a lack of application of mind. Based on this reasoning, the FIR was quashed.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, in its judgment authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and concurred by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, allowed the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka. It held that although a preliminary enquiry is desirable in corruption cases, it is not mandatory.
Citing Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 2 SCC 1] and State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy [2025 SCC OnLine SC 382], the Court reiterated that:
“The use of the term ‘may be made’ as noted in Lalita Kumari underscores that conducting such an inquiry is discretionary in nature and not a mandatory obligation.”
Further, referring to its decision in CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi [(2021) 18 SCC 135], the Bench held that a public servant has no inherent right to be heard before the filing of an FIR, and there is no requirement of notice or opportunity for explanation at that stage.
Findings and Decision
The Court noted that the source report, prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and submitted to the SP, contained detailed allegations, including specific properties acquired by Channakeshava during the check period from 1998 to 2023. The report concluded that disproportionate assets worth over ₹6.64 crore had been acquired, and legal action was recommended.
Holding that the SP’s order directing the FIR was based on sufficient material in the form of this report, the Court concluded:
“In matters of corruption, a preliminary enquiry although desirable, but 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.”
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the High Court’s order and reinstated the FIR against Channakeshava.
Citation: State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava H.D. & Anr., Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16212 of 2024
