FIRs not reliant on prior probe in graft cases: SC

New Delhi Conducting a preliminary inquiry before lodging a corruption case is not a mandatory legal requirement, nor is it compulsory for a first information report (FIR) to be lodged prior to commencing a probe, the Supreme Court has ruled, noting that law enforcement agencies must not be restrained by unnecessary administrative hurdles in initiating investigations.

The apex court further emphasised that procedural laws should facilitate investigations rather than hinder them, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of corruption.

“The preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every case under the PC (Prevention of Corruption) Act. If a superior officer is in seisin (possession) of a source information report which is both detailed and well-reasoned and such that any reasonable person would be of the view that it prima facie discloses the commission of a cognisable offence, the preliminary inquiry may be avoided,” held a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta.

The court emphasised that while a preliminary inquiry may be desirable in certain instances, it is neither a vested right of the accused nor a statutory mandate under the PC Act, 1988. “The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity of the information received, but merely to ascertain whether the said information reveals the commission of a cognisable offence. The scope of such inquiry is naturally narrow and limited to prevent unnecessary harassment while simultaneously ensuring that genuine allegations of a cognizable offence are not stifled arbitrarily,” it explained.

The bench also underscored the legislative objective behind the PC Act is to create a robust mechanism for investigating corruption cases, and to avoid the creation of meandering procedural hurdles that shield corrupt officials.

“While interpreting such procedural laws, it must be borne in mind that the interpretation should facilitate and not frustrate the investigation of potential criminal activities, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of corruption. The correct approach in such cases is to bolster the system created to ensure accountability and prevent arbitrary investigations, and not as a means to create insurmountable procedural barriers at the very inception,” the judgment stressed.

According to the bench, a fair investigation cannot be interpreted to cater to the accused only, rather it must be such that the entire investigation process has a backing of the law, and the due procedure established therein.

The judgment by the bench came while reinstating a criminal investigation against a deputy general manager (DGM) with the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom), and setting aside a Karnataka high court order that had quashed the FIR against him. The Supreme Court underscored that the high court erred in holding that preliminary inquiry is a prerequisite for filing an FIR, as it affirmed the appeal filed by the state government, argued through advocate Nishanth Patil.

The court held that the necessity of a preliminary inquiry depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Relying on some previous rulings of the top court, the bench concluded: “It is perspicuous that conducting a preliminary inquiry is not sine qua non for registering a case against a public servant who is accused of corruption.”

The top court also found fault with the high court’s ruling that registration of an FIR is mandatory for issuance of an order to investigate the case. It held that no such requirement could be read in the legal framework and that once a police officer, competent to register a case, receives substantial information about a cognizable offence, it was not only their function but also their duty to order investigation.

“By mandating elaborate pre-investigation procedures and creating unwarranted procedural check dams, the high court’s approach has the potential to render the effectiveness of law enforcement nugatory. These additional procedural requirements which virtually tantamount to framing a policy could not only disrupt the smooth functioning of investigation agencies, but also risk shielding corrupt public servants from proper scrutiny, which would be in contravention of the objective of the PC Act,” held the bench.

The case involved an allegation that TN Sudhakar Reddy had collected assets worth ₹3.81 crore, which were approximately 90.72% more than his known sources of income. The Karnataka Lokayukta Police, based on a source information report submitted on November 10, 2023, directed an investigation against him. Following this, the superintendent of police (SP) ordered the registration of an FIR on December 4, 2023. However, Reddy approached the Karnataka high court, which quashed the FIR, citing the absence of a preliminary inquiry. The state government challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.