Supreme Court Holds Composite Order Allowing FIR Registration And Investigation Under PC Act Valid

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by the State of Karnataka against a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court which had quashed an FIR registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police. The appeal challenged the High Court’s order of 4 March 2024 that allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC and set aside registration of Crime No. 56 of 2023 against a public servant accused of possessing disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(b) and Section 12 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR, and restored the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The Court emphasised that a preliminary inquiry was not mandatory in every corruption case where available material prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence and that a superior officer could, upon applying his mind to a detailed source information report, direct registration of an FIR and simultaneously authorise investigation under Section 17 of the PC Act. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In view of the above discussion, we conclude that:- a. The High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the order dated 4th December, 2023, passed by the Superintendent of Police, was directly passed under Section 17 of the PC Act, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of the PC Act. b. The preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every case under the PC Act. If a superior officer is in seisin of a source information report which is both detailed and well-reasoned and such that any reasonable person would be of the view that it prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the preliminary inquiry may be avoided. c. Section 17 of the PC Act relates specifically to the investigation process, and not the initial act of registering the FIR, for which it relies on the provisions of the CrPC. Hence, it places limitations on only the investigation; it does not impede the fundamental duty of the law enforcement agency to record and register an FIR for cognizable offences. d. On a harmonious reading of the provisions of the PC Act and the CrPC, it is manifest that the Superintendent of Police is competent to direct the registration of an FIR if he has information about the commission of a cognizable offence, punishable under the PC Act. The former is also competent to simultaneously direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police to register an FIR for the offences under the PC Act, with the understanding that the subsequent investigation will be subject to the restrictions outlined in Section 17 of the PC Act. A composite order to register the FIR and conduct investigation aligns with the statutory framework of the CrPC and the PC Act.”

Background The respondent joined Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited in 2007 and later served as Deputy General Manager (Vigilance)/Executive Engineer (Electrical) at BESCOM, Bengaluru. A detailed source information report dated 10 November 2023, submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, alleged that the respondent had acquired assets totaling Rs. 3,81,40,246/-, being approximately 90.72% more than his known sources of income. The Superintendent issued an order dated 4 December 2023 directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police to register a case and investigate; the order reproduced the finding that “From the material placed before me and with application of my mind I am satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out against Sri T N Sudhakar Reddy…Warranting a statutory investigation for an offence under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.”

The respondent moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC which quashed the FIR on the ground that no preliminary inquiry had been conducted and that the Superintendent had not properly applied his mind before invoking Section 17 of the PC Act. The State contended before the Supreme Court that (i) preliminary inquiry was not mandatory when information disclosed commission of cognizable offences; (ii) the source information report itself was detailed enough to serve the purpose of a preliminary inquiry; and (iii) the Superintendent had applied his mind and validly authorised registration and investigation. The respondent relied on precedents stressing the desirability of preliminary inquiry in corruption matters (P. Sirajuddin, Lalita Kumari) and contended that the Superintendent’s order was mechanical and vitiated.

The Supreme Court analysed the law in Lalita Kumari, Managipet, Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi and other authorities, held that preliminary inquiry was discretionary and fact‑sensitive (corruption cases being illustrative where inquiry “may be made”), and found that the source information report in this case prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence. The Court concluded that the Superintendent validly exercised his authority to issue a composite order directing registration of the FIR and authorising investigation under Section 17 PC Act. The High Court’s quashing order was set aside, the FIR in Crime No. 56 of 2023 was restored and the matter was left pending before the trial court; pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 13264 of 2024); 2025 INSC 229 Case Title: State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): State of Karnataka — Counsel not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): T.N. Sudhakar Reddy — Counsel not indicated in the judgment