The Supreme Court recently ruled that a preliminary inquiry is not required before registering a First Information Report (FIR) against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court clarified that while a preliminary inquiry can be useful in some cases, it is not a fundamental right of the accused or a mandatory step before initiating criminal proceedings. The judgment emphasized that the purpose of a preliminary inquiry is not to confirm the truth of the allegations but to determine whether they indicate a cognizable offense.

The case before the Supreme Court involved an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against a Karnataka High Court decision that quashed an FIR registered against public servant T.N. Sudhakar Reddy in a disproportionate assets case. The Karnataka Lokayukta Police had filed the FIR under Sections 13(1)(b) and 12 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court's decision to quash the FIR led the state to seek redress before the Supreme Court.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking SC Status for Are-Katika Community, Cites Parliamentary Authority

Background of the Case

The key issue in the case was whether a preliminary inquiry was necessary before the registration of an FIR or if a source information report could suffice. The State of Karnataka argued that if the source information report clearly disclosed a cognizable offense, no preliminary inquiry was needed. The Superintendent of Police had reviewed the report and determined a prima facie case existed. The defense contended that the absence of a preliminary inquiry made the FIR invalid, relying on the precedent set in Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, which emphasized the importance of preliminary inquiries to avoid baseless allegations against public servants.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the Karnataka High Court’s decision, making it clear that an accused person cannot insist on a preliminary inquiry when the source information report discloses a cognizable offense. The Court stated that a preliminary inquiry is discretionary and not a mandatory requirement. The Court also held that the source information report was sufficient to justify registering the FIR, as it detailed financial irregularities showing that Reddy’s assets exceeded his known income by 90.72%.

Read Also:- Union Government Proposes Changes to SEIAA & DEIAA Process for Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Informed

Additionally, the Court upheld the legality of the Superintendent of Police’s order directing FIR registration and investigation under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It ruled that the High Court was incorrect in stating that FIR registration had to precede an order for investigation, clarifying that both actions could occur simultaneously.

This ruling streamlines corruption investigations by preventing unnecessary procedural delays while ensuring that accused public servants cannot misuse the law to evade accountability. By reaffirming that preliminary inquiries are optional rather than mandatory, the Supreme Court has helped protect genuine investigations from being derailed by procedural loopholes.

The judgment reinstates the FIR against T.N. Sudhakar Reddy and allows the case to proceed before the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. This decision sets an important precedent for handling corruption cases, ensuring that legal procedures are not manipulated to shield public servants from scrutiny.

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