While setting aside an order quashing an FIR in a corruption case, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the requirement of preliminary enquiry can be relaxed if a superior officer, based on a detailed source report, passes an order for registration of FIR.

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the order passed by the Karnataka High Court where the Single Judge had quashed the entire proceedings initiated by the State against the first respondent (Sri Channakeshava. H.D.) for offences under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), in a case of Disproportionate Assets (DA case).

Referring to the judgments in State of Karnataka v. T.N Sudhakar Reddy (2025) and Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014), the Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “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.”

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat represented the Appellant while AOR Smarhar Singh represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The first respondent was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited in the year 1998. Later, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in Bangalore Electricity Supply Corporation (BESCOM). It was the case of the Prosecution that the first respondent, while working as a public servant, had enriched himself illicitly and consequently, an FIR was registered under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. Thereafter, the investigation commenced.

The FIR came to be quashed by the Karnataka High Court primarily on the ground that a preliminary enquiry is desirable but not mandatory. Aggrieved thereby, the State approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the source report was prepared by the second respondent- Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and the same was submitted to the SP. According to this source report, it was prima facie found that the first respondent had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period to the tune of Rs.6,64,67,000. “Based on this source report, which is nothing but a kind of preliminary enquiry, an order was passed by the SP directing the registration of an FIR against respondent no.1”, the Bench noticed.

The Bench further noticed that the Counsel for the State had relied upon the judgment in CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, (2021) where it was specifically stated that an accused public servant does not have any right to explain the alleged disproportionate assets before filing of an FIR. “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”, it said.

The Apex Court was of the view that the 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. Moreover the SP had passed that order based on material placed before him in the form of the source report.

Concluding that the High Court ought not to have quashed the FIR, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Cause Title: State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava.H.D & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 471)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, AOR Nishanth Patil, Advocates Ayush P Shah, Arijit Dey, Mehul Kumar Garg

Respondent: AOR Smarhar Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.