Supreme Court Clarifies that Preliminary Enquiry Is Not Mandatory Before Filing FIR in Corruption Cases

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the matter of State of Karnataka v. Channakeshava.H.D. & Anr. (2025 INSC 471), delivered a significant ruling that clarifies the role of preliminary enquiry in disproportionate assets (DA) cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). This judgment arose from an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against an executive engineer for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The dispute turned on whether a “preliminary enquiry” was mandatorily required under the second proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act before registering an FIR. The High Court had quashed the proceedings against the accused (Respondent No. 1) on the ground that the Superintendent of Police (SP) had not conducted a proper preliminary enquiry nor applied his mind before directing registration of the FIR. However, the Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry is merely desirable—rather than mandatory—when detailed source information is already available to the SP. This commentary explores the rationale and consequences of this landmark decision.

Summary of the Judgment

In State of Karnataka v. Channakeshava.H.D., the Supreme Court made the following key observations and conclusions:

• The High Court had quashed the FIR on the basis that the second proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act was violated, as there was no “proper” preliminary enquiry by the SP before ordering that the FIR be registered.
• The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that although a preliminary enquiry might be “desirable,” it is not invariably mandatory. Where the SP has detailed and credible source information that sufficiently indicates the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR may be lawfully registered without a separate or additional preliminary enquiry process.
• In light of the source report that described the nature and extent of alleged disproportionate assets, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court ought not to have quashed the FIR.
• Ultimately, the Court allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s order.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court relied extensively on its earlier decisions to underscore the position that a preliminary enquiry in corruption cases may be conducted at the discretion of the investigating authority, but is not mandatory if there is a sufficiently detailed source report:

• Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1:
  This case established that while preliminary enquiry is “desirable” in certain categories of cases, including corruption, it does not constitute an absolute rule. The Court explained that the necessity of such an enquiry depends upon the facts and circumstances of each individual matter.
• P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595:
  The Court had emphasized that before a public servant is “publicly charged” with acts of dishonesty, some suitable preliminary enquiry is recommended. However, this general principle does not invariably translate into a rigid procedural requirement for every case.
• State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (2025 SCC OnLine SC 382):
  This ruling clarified that although preliminary enquires are “desirable,” the word used in Lalita Kumari is “may,” indicating discretion rather than duty. Where the supply of source information is extensive and credible, registration of an FIR without further enquiry is permissible.
• CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (2021) 18 SCC 135:
  Reiterated that an accused public servant does not enjoy the right to be heard or to explain allegations before the registration of an FIR.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning pivots on the absence of an express statutory requirement for a preliminary enquiry under Sections 13 or 17 of the PC Act. The second proviso to Section 17 clearly states that offences under Section 13(1)(b) of the PC Act cannot be investigated without the order of an SP or an equivalent officer. The Court pointed out that once an SP has sufficient credible information, the need for a separate preliminary enquiry becomes less critical.

The Court examined the purpose of the “source report” prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). That report contained detailed information about the involvement of Respondent No. 1 in allegedly amassing disproportionate wealth and served as a logical basis for the SP to conclude the existence of a cognizable offence. Hence, the source report itself satisfied the threshold of a preliminary review of the case against the accused.

Impact

This judgment will have a notable impact on future investigations in corruption and disproportionate asset cases:

1. Investigation Threshold:
   Investigating agencies (e.g., Anti-Corruption Bureaus, Lokayukta police) may now initiate FIRs more swiftly if detailed source information or evidence is readily available, without fear of the entire case being quashed on procedural grounds for lack of a formal preliminary enquiry.
2. Reduced Procedural Hurdles:
   The ruling underscores the fact that the SP’s order, based on thorough material, suffices to meet the legal requirement under the PC Act. This lowers administrative “entry barriers” to lodging FIRs in corruption cases.
3. Clarification of Legal Requirements:
   The judgment provides clarity for the police and prosecuting agencies on balancing the “desirability” of a preliminary enquiry with the “non-mandatory” nature of such an enquiry.
4. Potential for Judicial Consistency:
   Going forward, courts are more likely to apply the principle that once credible information is submitted to a sufficiently senior officer, whether additional preliminary steps occurred will not nullify the subsequent investigation or FIR.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Preliminary Enquiry:
A preliminary enquiry in corruption cases refers to an initial fact-finding or verification process conducted by an investigating authority or officer to ascertain whether the alleged conduct merits further investigation. Though the Supreme Court has, in several decisions, stated that it may be desirable, this latest judgment clarifies that it is not a strict legal requirement, especially when a senior officer like the SP already possesses adequate evidence from reliable sources.

Disproportionate Assets (DA) Case:
A DA case typically involves a public servant who has allegedly amassed wealth or property well above their legitimate earnings. Section 13(1)(b) of the PC Act criminalizes such conduct, subject to certain parameters and proofs regarding the individual’s known sources of income.

Source Report:
This is an internal document, usually compiled by investigating officers (such as a Deputy Superintendent of Police), that summarizes the allegations, evidence, or intelligence gathered on the suspect’s assets and liabilities, thereby giving a snapshot of the possible disproportionate assets before a formal FIR is registered.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Channakeshava.H.D. & Anr. fortifies the principle that while a preliminary enquiry may be legally advisable in corruption matters, especially under the guidelines laid down in Lalita Kumari, it is not an indispensable requirement. Where a superior officer like the Superintendent of Police is satisfied with credible, detailed information indicating that a public servant possesses disproportionate assets, an FIR can be lodged without additional formalities or the risk of being quashed on purely procedural grounds.

This ruling thereby helps expedite anti-corruption measures and prevents abuse of the “preliminary enquiry” prerequisite as a tool for delaying legitimate investigations. Going forward, investigating agencies and courts alike will enjoy greater clarity on the threshold for initiating action in DA cases, promoting efficiency and consistency in the administration of criminal justice under the PC Act.