LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus SRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 608 : 2025 INSC 471 State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava.H.D. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1849 of 2025) 08 April 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in quashing the FIR against the respondent no.1-public servant under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in a case of Disproportionate Assets, on the ground that the Superintendent of Police (SP) failed to conduct a preliminary enquiry before passing the orders directing registration of FIR. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(b), 13(2), 17 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Corruption matters against the public servants – Preliminary enquiry, if mandatory: Held: No – There is no provision for a preliminary enquiry u/ss.13 or 17, PC Act – Second proviso to s. 17, PC Act does not speak of a preliminary enquiry – Though, in matters of corruption against the public servants a preliminary enquiry is desirable, but it 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 – In the present case, the preliminary enquiry was not mandated as detailed information was already there before the SP in the form of the source report explaining the reasons for initiation of proceedings giving the details – Thus, the SP had passed the order directing registration of FIR against the respondent no.1 on the basis of material placed before him in the form of the source report – High Court ought not to have quashed the FIR – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 8, 15, 16] * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 609 State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava.H.D. & Anr. Case Law Cited Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2013] 14 SCR 713 : (2014) 2 SCC 1; P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [1970] 3 SCR 931 : (1970) 1 SCC 595; State of Karnataka v. T.N Sudhakar Reddy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 382; CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi [2021] 13 SCR 364 : (2021) 18 SCC 135 – referred to. List of Acts Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Proviso to section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Corruption cases; Quashing; Section 482 CrPC; Disproportionate assets; Public servants; Preliminary enquiry; Source report; Superintendent of Police (SP); Lalita Kumari judgment. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1849 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2024 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 28052 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Nishanth Patil, Ayush P Shah, Arijit Dey, Mehul Kumar Garg. Advs. for the Respondents: Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Kumar Parimal, Smarhar Singh. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The State of Karnataka has presently challenged the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Karnataka High Court where the learned 610 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 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). 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’). 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. 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 r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.