LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus T.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1241 : 2025 INSC 229 State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2024) 17 February 2025 [Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether High Court was justified in quashing the FIR registered against the Respondent in the absence of a preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; whether a composite order can be passed under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 directing registration of FIR and conducting investigation in the case. Headnotes† Requirement of preliminary inquiry before directing registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act: Held: Conducting a preliminary inquiry is not sine qua non for registering a case against a public servant who is accused of corruption – While preliminary inquiry is desirable in certain categories of cases including those under the PC Act, it is neither a vested right of the accused, nor a mandatory pre-requisite for registration of a criminal case – The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity of the information received, but merely to ascertain whether the said information reveals the commission of a cognizable offence – Whether a preliminary inquiry is necessary or not will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case – In the present case, the source information report submitted by the Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station comprehensively documents the financial irregularities committed by the respondent and disclosed a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence involving acquisition of disproportionate assets, punishable under the PC Act. [Paras 24, 25, 26, 27, 51] * Author 1242 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Validity of a composite order under Section 17 of the PC Act directing registration of FIR and conducting investigation: Held: While interpreting procedural laws like the PC Act, it must be borne in mind that the interpretation should facilitate and not frustrate the investigation of potential criminal activities, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of corruption – The Superintendent of Police is conferred with the responsibility of evaluating source information report(s) and to determine whether the same prima facie warrants further investigation – A conjoint reading of Section 36 with Section 154 of CrPC (corresponding with Sections 30 and 173 of BNSS respectively) would make it clear that if the officer in charge of a police station can direct the registration of an FIR under Section 154, as a natural corollary by virtue of Section 36 CrPC, superior officers, which in the case at hand is the Superintendent of Police, are equally competent to issue such directions for registration of the FIR – High Court erred in holding that the Superintendent of Police must first direct the registration of an FIR and only after it is registered, he would be competent to issue an order for investigation under Section 17 of the PC Act – Since the subordinate police officers are obligated to comply with the orders of the Superintendent of Police, it cannot be argued that he lacked the authority to issue directions under Section 17 of the PC Act simultaneously with the direction to register the FIR – The former interpretation is against the true intent of the PC Act and is liable to be discarded – Hence, the composite order dated 4th December 2023 issued by the Superintendent of Police under Section 17 of the PC Act, directing the registration of the FIR and authorizing investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police is valid and compliant with law. (Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta v. B. Srinivas (2008) 8 SCC 580 relied on) [Paras 40-45, 49, 51] Case Law Cited P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [1970] 3 SCR 931 : (1970) 1 SCC 595; Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [2013] 14 SCR 713 : (2014) 2 SCC 1; CBI and Another v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi and Another [2021] 13 SCR 364 : (2021) 18 SCC 135; State of Telangana v. Managipet Alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy [2019] 14 SCR 716 : (2019) 19 SCC 87; State of M.P. and Ors. v. Ram Singh [2000] 1 SCR 579 : (2000) 5 SCC 88; Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1243 State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy [2023] 6 SCR 135 : (2023) 14 SCC 1; Superintendent of Police, K
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.