The SC clarify there is no need for preliminary investigation in FIR’s corruption against public servants

Last Updated on February 24, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC

The Supreme Court recently observed that a preliminary investigation is not mandatory before registering a FIR One against a public servant under the Corruption Prevention Law. In addition, the defendant cannot have the right acquired to claim a preliminary investigation before the FIR registration in corruption cases.

“It is insightful that carrying out a preliminary investigation is not sine that not to register a case against a public servant accused of corruption. Although preliminary investigation is desirable in certain cases of cases, including those of the PC law, it is not an acquired right of the accused, nor a mandatory prerequisite for the registration of a criminal case, ”the court observed.

Although preliminary investigation is not mandatory when the information reveals a commission of a cognizable crime, the court said that, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be desirable at the end of the investigation agency to determine if the crime committed is recognizable or not.

“The purpose of a preliminary investigation is not to verify the veracity of the information received, but simply determine whether such information reveals the commission of a recognizable crime. The scope of this investigation is naturally narrow and limited to avoid unnecessary harassment, while ensuring that genuine accusations of recognizable crime are not arbitrarily suffocated. Therefore, the determination, if a preliminary investigation is necessary or not, will vary in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case, ”the court observed.

The case

The bank that includes Judges Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal of the state of Karnataka against the decision of the Superior Court to annul the FIR against the public servant required in relation to the disproportionate case of the assets.

Karnataka Lokayukta police registered a FIR against the Corruption Prevention Law, 1988 (PC Law), specifically under section 13 (1) (b) and section 12 says section 13 (2 (2).

The Superior Court of Karnataka annulled the FIR, leading the state of Karnataka to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue

The debatable question before the court was whether a preliminary investigation was mandatory before registering a FIR under the PC law, or if the origin information report could replace a preliminary investigation.

Arguments

Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that a preliminary investigation is not mandatory if the origin information report reveals a recognizable crime. In addition, he argued that the Police Superintendent applied his mind and found a Facie Prima Case based on the Origin Information Report.

Opposing the state arguments, the demanded public servant citing Lalita Kumari v. Up Case argued that preliminary research is mandatory in corruption cases to avoid frivolous complaints.

Decision

Leaving aside the decision of the Superior Court, the judgment created by Judge Mehta reiterated the law established in the Central Office of Investigation against Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi. It reveals the commission of a recognizable crime.

The Court considered that the defendant of the accused in the case of Lalita Kumari was out of place because the case of Lalita Kumari did not demand a preliminary investigation in matters related to corruption, but left it at the discretion of the investigation agency based on the facts . or circumstances of the case in which the source of the source of information does not reveal the commission of a recognizable case.

“It was argued that preliminary investigation is not mandatory if the information received by the police officer/investigation agency reveals the commission of a recognizable crime. However, if a preliminary investigation is carried out, its scope is limited to determining whether the information facie reveals the commission of a recognizable crime and does not extend to verify its veracity. The need for preliminary investigation depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. For example, corruption cases are divided into a category where preliminary investigation can be done, ‘the court observed in the case of Lalita Kumari.

In addition, responding that the Origin Information Report could replace a preliminary investigation, the Court when reading the Origin Information Report indicated that it was detailed sufficiently detailed to serve as a preliminary investigation, since it provided an integral breakdown of the breakdowns of the assets and income surveyed. Discrepancies.

In terms of those mentioned, the Court allowed the appeal of the State and restored the FIR against the accused, canceled by the Superior Court.