In a significant ruling strengthening anti-corruption jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has reiterated that a preliminary inquiry is not a mandatory prerequisite for initiating criminal proceedings against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”). The Court clarified that a corruption case cannot be quashed solely on the ground that no preliminary inquiry was conducted prior to the registration of the FIR, especially where credible material already exists before the competent authority.
Background of the Case
In State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava H.D. & Anr., the Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was dealing with an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka. The Karnataka High Court had quashed corruption proceedings against the respondent–public servant on the sole ground that the Superintendent of Police (SP) had not ordered a preliminary inquiry before directing registration of the FIR. Challenging this decision, the State argued that:
A detailed source report was already available before the SP. The report disclosed commission of a cognizable offence. The SP had applied his mind and passed a reasoned order directing registration of the FIR. Therefore, a formal preliminary inquiry was not necessary. The State relied upon the recent judgment in State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy, which emphasized that when detailed material is already before the authority, the requirement of preliminary inquiry may be relaxed.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court’s order, the judgment authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held:
“To sum up, this Court has held that 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 Court noted that: Detailed information was already available before the SP. The SP’s order directing registration of FIR reflected application of mind. Therefore, the absence of a formal preliminary inquiry could not be a ground to quash the proceedings.
The Bench categorically observed:
“It is clear that preliminary enquiry was not mandated in the present case, considering that detailed information was already there before the SP in the form of the source report….”
No Right of Hearing Before FIR Registration
The Court further addressed an important procedural issue whether a public servant accused of corruption has a right to be heard before registration of FIR.
Placing reliance on CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (2021) 18 SCC 135, the Supreme Court reiterated that:
An accused public servant does not have any inherent right to explain or defend alleged disproportionate assets before the filing of FIR.
There is no statutory or constitutional mandate requiring a pre-FIR hearing.
The Court observed:
“We are also of the opinion that this is the correct legal position as there is no inherent right of a public servant to be heard at this stage.”
This reinforces the settled principle that criminal law can be set in motion once cognizable material is available, without affording a pre-investigation opportunity of hearing to the accused.
Case Title: State of Karnataka Versus Sri Channakeshava H.D. & Anr.
