State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava H.D.

,

Read E-book: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/fpxq/

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 โ€“ Section 13(1)(b), Section 13(2), Section 17 (Second Proviso) โ€“ Disproportionate Assets โ€“ Preliminary Enquiry โ€“ Requirement of Superintendent of Police (SP) Order โ€“ FIR Quashing.

Held

Preliminary enquiry before registering FIR for offence under Section 13(1)(b) not mandatory; second proviso to Section 17 only mandates SPโ€™s order, not formal enquiry. Detailed source report disclosing prima facie cognizable offence sufficient to satisfy Section 17 requirements. Public servant has no right to pre-FIR hearing. Karnataka High Courtโ€™s order quashing FIR set aside, as SPโ€™s order based on source report showed application of mind.

Appeal allowed, FIR restored.

Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1; State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 382; CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, (2021) 18 SCC 135, relied on.

Court : Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Judges : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.; K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Date of Judgment : April 8, 2025
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16212 of 2024
Parties: State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava.H.D. & Anr.
Citation : 2025 (4) KLR (SC) 48 : 2025 INSC 471

Arising From: Impugned final judgment and order dated 25-04-2024 in WP No. 28052/2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Facts

  • Background: Sri Channakeshava.H.D. (Respondent No. 1) was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited in 1998 and later promoted to Executive Engineer at Bangalore Electricity Supply Corporation (BESCOM).
  • Allegations: The prosecution alleged that Respondent No. 1 illicitly enriched himself, leading to the registration of an FIR (No. 54/2023) on 04-12-2023 at P.S. Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore, under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) for possessing disproportionate assets (DA case).
  • Source Report: A source report dated 05-10-2023, prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and submitted to the Superintendent of Police (SP), alleged that Respondent No. 1 acquired assets worth Rs. 6,64,67,000, disproportionate to his known income (92.54%) from 11-11-1998 to 30-09-2023.
  • High Court Proceedings: Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition in the Karnataka High Court, challenging the FIR on the ground that the investigation violated the second proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act, which requires an order from a police officer not below the rank of SP. The High Court quashed the FIR on 25-04-2024, holding that the SPโ€™s order lacked a preliminary enquiry, indicating no application of mind.
  • Appeal: The State of Karnataka appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory under Section 17 of the PC Act and that the SPโ€™s order was based on a detailed source report.

Issues

  1. Whether a preliminary enquiry is mandatory before registering an FIR under Section 13(1)(b) of the PC Act, as per the second proviso to Section 17.
  2. Whether the Karnataka High Court was justified in quashing the FIR due to the absence of a preliminary enquiry by the SP.

Legal Provisions

  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
    • Section 13(1)(b): Criminal misconduct by a public servant for possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income.
    • Section 13(2): Punishment for criminal misconduct.
    • Section 17: Specifies that no police officer below the rank of SP shall investigate an offence under Section 13(1)(b) without the SPโ€™s order.
  • Relevant Case Law:
    • Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1: Held that a preliminary enquiry is desirable but not mandatory in corruption cases before registering an FIR.
    • P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595: Emphasized the need for a preliminary enquiry before charging a public servant with corruption.
    • State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (2025 SCC OnLine SC 382): Clarified that a preliminary enquiry is discretionary, not mandatory, especially when a detailed source report discloses a cognizable offence.
    • CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (2021) 18 SCC 135: Held that an accused public servant has no right to explain alleged disproportionate assets before FIR registration.

Arguments

  • Appellant (State of Karnataka):
    • A preliminary enquiry is not mandatory under Section 17 of the PC Act, as per Lalita Kumari and T.N. Sudhakar Reddy.
    • The SPโ€™s order dated 04-12-2023 was based on a detailed source report dated 05-10-2023, which served as a preliminary enquiry, showing prima facie evidence of a cognizable offence.
    • The accused has no right to a hearing before FIR registration, as per CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi.
  • Respondent No. 1:
    • The absence of a preliminary enquiry violated the second proviso to Section 17, as the SP did not conduct an independent enquiry, showing no application of mind.
    • Respondent No. 1 was not given an opportunity to explain the allegations, and the FIR was used to harass him.

Judgment

  • Ruling: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Karnataka High Courtโ€™s order dated 25-04-2024, and restored the FIR against Respondent No. 1.
  • Reasoning:
    • Preliminary Enquiry Not Mandatory: The Court reaffirmed that a preliminary enquiry, while desirable in corruption cases (as Tellicherry v. State of Kerala (1998) 3 SCC 1, is not mandatory under Section 17 of the PC Act. The second proviso to Section 17 only requires an SPโ€™s order, not a preliminary enquiry. The Court relied on Lalita Kumari and T.N. Sudhakar Reddy to hold that a preliminary enquiry is discretionary, particularly when a detailed source report discloses a cognizable offence.
    • Sufficiency of Source Report: The source report dated 05-10-2023, prepared by the DSP and submitted to the SP, constituted a form of preliminary enquiry. It detailed assets worth Rs. 6,64,67,000, disproportionate to Respondent No. 1โ€™s income, satisfying the requirement for the SPโ€™s order under Section 17.
    • No Right to Pre-FIR Hearing: Citing CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, the Court held that a public servant has no inherent right to explain allegations before FIR registration.
    • SPโ€™s Application of Mind: The SPโ€™s order dated 04-12-2023 was based on the source report, demonstrating sufficient application of mind, contrary to the High Courtโ€™s finding.
  • Conclusion: The High Court erred in quashing the FIR, as the procedural requirements under Section 17 were met, and the source report provided a prima facie basis for the FIR.

Ratio Decidendi

  • A preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before registering an FIR under Section 13(1)(b) of the PC Act, especially when a detailed source report establishes a prima facie cognizable offence.
  • The second proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act requires only an order from an SP, not a formal preliminary enquiry.
  • A public servant has no right to a hearing before the registration of an FIR in a corruption case.

Obiter Dicta

  • The Court emphasized the discretionary nature of preliminary enquiries in corruption cases, as established in Lalita Kumari, and clarified that the presence of a detailed source report can obviate the need for a formal enquiry.

Disposition

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Impugned order of the Karnataka High Court dated 25-04-2024 set aside.
  • FIR restored.
  • Interim orders vacated, and pending applications disposed of.

Significance

This judgment reinforces the discretionary nature of preliminary enquiries in corruption cases under the PC Act, clarifying that a detailed source report can substitute for a formal enquiry. It also upholds the principle that public servants have no right to a pre-FIR hearing, streamlining the initiation of corruption investigations while ensuring compliance with statutory safeguards like the SPโ€™s order under Section 17.

, , , ,