Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court earlier this month said that there is no inherent right of a public servant to be heard before registration of an FIR in connection with acquisition of assets disproportionate to known sources of income.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandra allowed an appeal filed by the Karnataka government against the high courts order of April 25, 2024 quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against one Channakeshava H D, for offences under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in a case of disproportionate assets case.

Court held that a preliminary enquiry was not mandated in the present case, considering that detailed information was already there before the Superintendent of Police in the form of the source report. 

Channakeshava (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. While working as a public servant, it was alleged that he had enriched himself illicitly and consequently, an FIR with Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Town (Bangalore) was registered on December 04, 2023, under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.

By a writ petition, the FIR was primarily challenged on the ground that there had 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.

The Karnataka High Court was of the opinion that although before lodging of the FIR, orders did come from the Superintendent of Police but the SP had not conducted any preliminary enquiry before passing his orders and therefore, there was no application of mind by the SP which would affect the entire proceedings and thus, it quashed the FIR.

The Karnataka Lokayukta, represented by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat and advocate Nishanth Patil, submitted that a preliminary enquiry visualised under the said proviso is desirable but not mandatory. In the present case, SP had passed an order on December 04, 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 of October 05, 2023.  

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, the state counsel said.

It was only in Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2014) that this court had held that before proceeding against a public servant in matters of corruption, it is desirable to have a preliminary enquiry, they said.

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, the counsel said.

According to this source report, it was prima facie found that respondent no.1 had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period i.e., November 11, 1998, to September 30, 2023, to the tune of Rs 6,64,67,000. Based on this source report, which was nothing but a kind of preliminary enquiry, an order was passed by the SP directing the registration of an FIR against respondent no.1, they said.     

The counsel also cited State of Karnataka Vs T N Sudhakar Reddy (2025) to contend that an enquiry before registration of FIR under PC Act is not mandatory.

The state counsel said the top court has held that in matters of corruption a preliminary enquiry although desirable, but is not mandatory. In a case where a superior officer, based on a detailed source report disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, passes an order for registration of FIR, the requirement of preliminary enquiry can be relaxed.

Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for respondent no. 1, contended he was never given a chance to explain his position before the registration of FIR. He argued that FIR had been used as an instrument to harass the public servant and this was a case where no prior notice or hearing was given to the officer (respondent no.1), which could have taken place if a preliminary enquiry had been held.

To this, Kamat cited a three-judge bench decision of the apex court in CBI Vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, (2021) where it was specifically stated that an accused public servant does not have any right to explain the alleged disproportionate assets before filing of an FIR. 

"We are also of the opinion that this is the correct legal position as there is no inherent right of a public servant to be heard at this stage," the bench said.

The court held it was 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. 

"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," the bench said.

Allowing the appeal, the bench said, "We are of the considered opinion that the High Court ought not to have quashed the FIR in the present case".

Case Title: State of Karnataka Vs Channakeshava H D & Anr