Bad News for Civil Servants: SC Ruling Clears Path for Immediate FIRs in Corruption Cases

The Supreme Court of India has held that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before registering a First Information Report (FIR) against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The judgment clarifies that an accused public servant cannot claim a vested right to demand a preliminary inquiry before an FIR is lodged in a corruption case

Background of the Case

The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta, in response to an appeal by the State of Karnataka against the Karnataka High Court’s decision to quash an FIR against a public servant accused of possessing disproportionate assets. The Karnataka Lokayukta Police had filed the FIR under Section 13(1)(b) and Section 12 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The High Court had quashed the FIR, ruling that the absence of a preliminary inquiry rendered the case invalid. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, stating that the requirement for a preliminary inquiry is case-dependent and discretionary, not a legal necessity.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court made the following important observations:

• Preliminary inquiry is not a sine qua non (absolute necessity) for registering an FIR against a public servant accused of corruption.
• While a preliminary inquiry is desirable in some cases, especially under the PC Act, it is not a vested right of the accused nor a mandatory prerequisite for a corruption-related criminal case.
• The scope of a preliminary inquiry is limited to determining whether the allegations prima facie indicate a cognizable offence and does not extend to verifying the truthfulness of the claims.
• If an investigating agency, upon examining a source information report, finds sufficient grounds, it can directly register an FIR without conducting an independent preliminary inquiry.

Arguments and Court’s Rationale

During the hearing, the State of Karnataka argued that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory if the source information report (SIR) discloses a cognizable offence. The state contended that the Superintendent of Police, upon reviewing the SIR, had applied his mind and found prima facie evidence to warrant an FIR.

ALSO READ: Pensioners’ Bank Accounts at Risk! Join This Webinar Before Cyber Criminals Strike!

On the other hand, the public servant (respondent), citing Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that a preliminary inquiry is required in corruption-related cases to avoid frivolous complaints.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the respondent’s argument, stating that Lalita Kumari’s case does not make a preliminary inquiry mandatory for corruption-related offences. Instead, it leaves the decision to the discretion of the investigating agency, based on facts and circumstances.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled that the source information report in this case was detailed enough to serve as a preliminary inquiry, as it contained a comprehensive breakdown of the respondent’s assets and income discrepancies. Therefore, the High Court’s decision was set aside, and the FIR was restored.

Significance of the Judgment

This landmark decision sets a clear legal precedent in corruption cases, ensuring that investigations are not delayed due to procedural hurdles. By removing the mandatory requirement for a preliminary inquiry, the Supreme Court has reinforced the need for timely action against corrupt public officials, strengthening the anti-corruption framework in India.

With this ruling, law enforcement agencies now have greater flexibility in acting against corruption cases, provided they have sufficient evidence from the outset. The judgment also serves as a warning to public servants that attempts to delay investigations by invoking procedural requirements will not hold ground in courts.

Follow The420.in on

 Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube