In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed an FIR against T.N. Sudhakar Reddy, a senior official of Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM), accused of possessing disproportionate assets. The apex court ruled that a preliminary inquiry is not a mandatory requirement before registering an FIR in corruption cases and reinstated the criminal proceedings against the accused.
Background of the Case
The case stems from allegations that T.N. Sudhakar Reddy, who joined Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) in 2007 and was later promoted to Deputy General Manager (Vigilance)/Executive Engineer (Electrical) at BESCOM, had amassed assets worth ₹3.81 crore, which were allegedly 90.72% disproportionate to his known sources of income.
A source information report was submitted by a Police Inspector of the Karnataka Lokayukta on November 10, 2023, detailing these allegations. The Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, after assessing the report, issued an order on December 4, 2023, directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police to register an FIR and commence an investigation under Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2), and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, Reddy approached the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking quashing of the proceedings. The High Court allowed his petition on March 4, 2024, holding that the registration of the FIR was invalid due to the absence of a preliminary inquiry. The State of Karnataka subsequently challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
The Supreme Court examined two core legal questions:
Whether a preliminary inquiry was mandatory before registering an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Whether the order issued by the Superintendent of Police, directing the registration of the FIR and authorizing the investigation, was legally sustainable.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled in favor of the State of Karnataka, restoring the FIR and upholding the validity of the investigation. The court categorically held that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every corruption case and that a well-documented source information report can suffice to initiate an FIR.
Quoting from its judgment, the Supreme Court observed:
“The preliminary inquiry is not a vested right of the accused nor a sine qua non for registering an FIR in corruption cases. If credible information discloses a cognizable offense, an FIR can be registered without further delay.”
The court relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), which clarified that while preliminary inquiries may be desirable in corruption cases, they are not a prerequisite. It also referred to State of Telangana v. Managipet Sarveshwar Reddy (2019), which held that law enforcement agencies could proceed with an FIR based on credible information.
Observations on the Superintendent of Police’s Order
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that the Superintendent of Police had acted mechanically in directing the registration of the FIR. It noted that the order dated December 4, 2023, was detailed, reasoned, and issued after due application of mind.
The court further emphasized:
“The legislative intent behind the Prevention of Corruption Act is to facilitate prompt investigation and prosecution of corruption cases. Imposing unwarranted procedural fetters on law enforcement agencies risks shielding corrupt officials from scrutiny.”
Case Details:
Case Name: State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2024
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta
