PC Act | Preliminary Enquiry Can Be Dispensed With If FIR Is Based On Detailed Source Report Submitted To SP : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that a preliminary inquiry is not a mandatory prerequisite under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) for initiating a corruption case against a public servant.

It added that a case against the public servant cannot be quashed solely on the ground that no preliminary inquiry had been conducted before the registration of the FIR.

“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 observed.

The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the State of Karnataka's appeal challenging the High Court's decision to quash the corruption case against the Respondent-accused. The High Court quashed the case solely because no preliminary enquiry was ordered by the Superintendent of Police before FIR registration against the public servant.

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant-State placing reliance on the recent case of State of Karnataka v. T.N Sudhakar Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 241 argued that once a detailed source report is there before the SP, explaining the reasons for initiation of proceedings and when details are given, a formal preliminary enquiry may not be necessary as all the relevant material is already there before the SP.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Dhulia finding merit in the Appellant's contention 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 referred above. We have also gone through the order passed by the SP, directing registration of FIR against respondent no.1, which reflects that the SP had passed that order on the basis of material placed before him in the form of the source report.”, the court observed.

No Right Of Accused-Public Servant To Be Heard Before Registration Of FIR In Corruption Case

Drawing sustenance from the case of CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, (2021) 18 SCC 135 where it was specifically stated that an accused public servant does not have any right to explain the alleged disproportionate assets before the filing of an FIR, 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.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA Versus SRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 412

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Mr. Ayush P Shah, Adv. Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. Mr. Mehul Kumar Garg, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Parimal, Adv. Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR