The Supreme Court has said conducting a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every case lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and it is not a vested right of the accused.
The court has said while a preliminary inquiry is desirable in certain categories of cases, including those lodged under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, it is not a mandatory pre-requisite for the registration of a criminal case.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta has said the purpose of a preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity of the information received, but merely to ascertain whether the said information revealed the commission of a cognisable offence.
"The preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every case under the PC Act," the bench said in its verdict delivered on February 17.
"If a superior officer is in seisin 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," it said.
The top court delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by the Karnataka government, challenging a March 2024 judgment of the state high court.
The high court had quashed an FIR lodged by the Karnataka Lokayukta police station against a public servant for alleged offences under the PC Act.
The public servant was accused of acquiring assets that were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
The top court dealt with the issue of whether a preliminary inquiry was mandatory before directing registration of an FIR under the PC Act in the facts of the case or whether the source information report could be treated as a substitute for the preliminary inquiry.
Referring to previous top court judgments, the bench said, "Applying these principles to the case at hand, 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." "While a preliminary inquiry is desirable in certain categories of cases, including those under the PC Act, it is neither a vested right of the accused nor a mandatory pre-requisite for the registration of a criminal case," it said.
The court said the determination of whether a preliminary inquiry was necessary or not would vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case.
It said the high court had erred in concluding that the FIR was liable to be quashed on account of the omission to conduct a preliminary inquiry in the case.
The bench also referred to section 17 of the PC Act that pertains to persons authorised to investigate.
It said in this case, the superintendent of police, after forming an opinion that the source information report of November 2023 prima facie disclosed the necessary ingredients of offences punishable under the Act, had directed the deputy superintendent of police to register an FIR against the accused and authorised him to investigate the case.
"We are of the opinion that the high court gravely erred while imposing unwarranted fetters on the investigation agency in corruption cases by carving out a framework of administrative hurdles, which may have the potential of incapacitating law-enforcement agencies," it said.
The court said by mandating elaborate pre-investigation procedures and creating unwarranted procedural check dams, the high court's approach had the potential to render the effectiveness of law enforcement nugatory.
The top court said the legislative intent behind the Act was to provide a robust mechanism for investigating corruption-related offences and 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," it said.
It said a fair probe cannot be interpreted to cater to the accused only, rather it must be such that the entire investigation process has the backing of the law and the due procedure established therein.
The bench noted that the superintendent of police was entrusted with the administrative authority to direct his subordinates to register an FIR upon receiving a factual report, which prima facie disclosed the commission of offences punishable under the PC Act.
"The high court erred in coming to the conclusion that the order dated December 4, 2023, passed by the superintendent of police, was directly passed under section 17 of the PC Act, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of the PC Act," it said.
The bench set aside the high court's verdict and restored the FIR lodged against the accused.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
