Appeal
State of Karnataka preferred this appeal against the quash order
2. The State of Karnataka has presently challenged the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Karnataka High Court where the learned Single Judge has quashed the entire proceedings initiated by the State against respondent no.1 (Sri Channakeshava. H.D.) for offences under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’), in a case of Disproportionate Assets (or DA case as it is called).
Facts
3. In the year 1998, respondent no.1 was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. Later, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in Bangalore Electricity Supply Corporation (for short ‘BESCOM’).
Repondent1 being a public servant enriched himself illicitly
4. According to the prosecution, the respondent no.1, while working as a public servant, had enriched himself illicitly and consequently, an FIR (No.54/2023) at P.S Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Town (Bangalore) was registered on 04.12.2023 under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. Thereafter, the investigation commenced.
Hon’ble High Court quashed the FIR on the ground of violation of second proviso to section 17 of PC Act
5. The respondent no.1 filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking quashing of above-mentioned FIR. The FIR was primarily challenged on the ground that there has been a violation of the second proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act which mandates that investigation cannot be done without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police (for short ‘SP’) in relation to the offence mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 13. Section 17 of the PC Act reads as follows:
“17. Persons authorised to investigate.—
Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.” (emphasis supplied)
State’s ground of appeal
7. This order of the High Court has been challenged by the State of Karnataka before this Court primarily on the ground that a preliminary enquiry visualized under the said proviso is desirable but not mandatory. Further, it has been argued on behalf of the State of Karnataka that, in the present case, SP had passed an order dated 04.12.2023 under Section 17 of the PC Act and this order was passed on consideration of relevant materials inasmuch as it was passed on the basis of a source report dated 05.10.2023.
No provision for preliminary enquiry under sections 13 or 17 of PC Act
8. There is no provision for a preliminary enquiry under Section 13 or Section 17 of the PC Act. The second proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act does not speak of a preliminary enquiry. It was only in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1 that this Court had held that before proceeding against a public servant in matters of corruption, it is desirable to have a preliminary enquiry. Much before Lalita Kumari (Supra), this Court in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595 had observed that “before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer.” Relying on this judgement, Lalita Kumari (Supra) had put the corruption matters under the category of cases in which preliminary enquiry may be made before registration of FIR. The relevant portion of Lalita Kumari (Supra) reads as follows:
“117. In the context of offences relating to corruption, this Court in P. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] expressed the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants.
Conclusion/Directions
120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: ……
120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.” (Emphasis supplied)
The learned counsel for the State of Karnataka would, however, argue that once a detailed source report is there before the SP, explaining the reasons for initiation of proceedings and when details are given, a formal preliminary enquiry may not be necessary as all the relevant material is already there before the SP.
Since detailed information was already before SP preliminary enquiry was not mandated
15. In view of the above, it is clear that 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 referred above. We have also gone through the order passed by the SP, directing registration of FIR against respondent no.1, which reflects that the SP had passed that order on the basis of material placed before him in the form of the source report.
Conclusion
Hon’ble High Court’s quash order set aside
16. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court ought not to have quashed the FIR in the present case. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and impugned order dated 25.04.2024 is hereby set aside.
Judgments that are cited or relied
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1
P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595
State of Karnataka v. T.N Sudhakar Reddy 2025 SCC OnLine SC 382
CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, (2021) 18 SCC 135
The acts and sections involved in this case are
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
+ Section 13(1)(b): offences relating to corruption
+ Section 13(2): punishment for offences under Section 13(1)(b)
+ Section 17: persons authorised to investigate offences under the Act, specifically the second proviso which mandates investigation not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police (SP) for offences under Section 13(1)(b)
Party
State of Karnataka – appellant vs. Sri Channakeshava.H.D & Anr – respondents -Criminal Appeal No 1849 of 2025 @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.16212 of 2024 – 2025 INSC 471 – April 8, 2025 – Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon’ble Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
