The Supreme Court has ruled that conducting a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before registering an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta stated that while a preliminary inquiry may be desirable in some cases, it is neither a vested right of the accused nor a prerequisite for initiating a criminal case.

The judgment was delivered on February 17 in response to an appeal filed by the Karnataka government challenging a high court ruling from March 2024. The high court had quashed an FIR lodged by the Karnataka Lokayukta police against a public servant accused of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The apex court emphasized that a preliminary inquiry is meant to determine whether the received information reveals a cognizable offence, not to verify its authenticity. If the information is well-reasoned and prima facie establishes an offence, an inquiry may be skipped. The court criticized the high court’s decision, stating that imposing unnecessary procedural requirements could hinder corruption investigations.

Referring to Section 17 of the PC Act, the Supreme Court noted that the superintendent of police, after evaluating the source information report from November 2023, directed an FIR to be registered and authorized an investigation. It ruled that the high court had erred in quashing the FIR based on the absence of a preliminary inquiry.

The bench stressed that procedural laws should facilitate investigations rather than obstruct them. It held that the high court’s interpretation created administrative hurdles that could weaken anti-corruption efforts. Setting aside the high court’s ruling, the Supreme Court reinstated the FIR, reinforcing the legislative intent to ensure effective prosecution of corruption cases.

The Supreme Court has ruled that conducting a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before registering an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta stated that while a preliminary inquiry may be desirable in some cases, it is neither a vested right of the accused nor a prerequisite for initiating a criminal case.

The judgment was delivered on February 17 in response to an appeal filed by the Karnataka government challenging a high court ruling from March 2024. The high court had quashed an FIR lodged by the Karnataka Lokayukta police against a public servant accused of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The apex court emphasized that a preliminary inquiry is meant to determine whether the received information reveals a cognizable offence, not to verify its authenticity. If the information is well-reasoned and prima facie establishes an offence, an inquiry may be skipped. The court criticized the high court’s decision, stating that imposing unnecessary procedural requirements could hinder corruption investigations.

Referring to Section 17 of the PC Act, the Supreme Court noted that the superintendent of police, after evaluating the source information report from November 2023, directed an FIR to be registered and authorized an investigation. It ruled that the high court had erred in quashing the FIR based on the absence of a preliminary inquiry.

The bench stressed that procedural laws should facilitate investigations rather than obstruct them. It held that the high court’s interpretation created administrative hurdles that could weaken anti-corruption efforts. Setting aside the high court’s ruling, the Supreme Court reinstated the FIR, reinforcing the legislative intent to ensure effective prosecution of corruption cases.