STATE OF KARNATAKAversusSRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. & ANR.

                 [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 rank of a Superintendent of Police (for short ‘SP’) in
       relation to the offence mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section 1 of
       Section 13. Section 17 of the PC Act reads as follows:
            “17. Persons authorised to investigate.—Notwithstanding
            anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
            1973 (2 of 1974) 38, no police officer below the rank,—
            (a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment,
            of an Inspector of Police;
            (b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras
            and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified
            as such under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Code of
            Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)39, of an Assistant
            Commissioner of Police;
            (c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a
            police officer of equivalent rank,
            shall investigate any offence punishable under this
            Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         611

          State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava.H.D. & Anr.


           Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make
           any arrest therefor without a warrant:
           Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an
           Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government
           in this behalf by general or special order, he may also
           investigate any such offence without the order of a
           Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class,
           as the case may be, or make arrest therefor without a
           warrant:
           Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (b)
           of sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall not be investigated
           without the order of a police officer not below the rank of
           a Superintendent of Police.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

6.   The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court was of the
     opinion that although before lodging of the FIR, orders did come from
     the Superintendent of Police (‘SP’) but the SP had not conducted any
     preliminary enquiry before passing his orders and therefore, there was
     no application of mind by the SP. In the opinion of the learned Judge
     of the High Court, this would affect the entire proceedings and thus,
     High Court vide impugned order dated 25.04.2024 quashed the FIR.
7.   This order of the High Court has been challenged by the State of
     Karnataka before this Court primarily on the ground that a preliminary
     enquiry visualized under the said proviso is desirable but not
     mandatory. Further, it has been argued on behalf of the State of
     Karnataka that, in the present case, SP had passed an order dated
     04.12.2023 under Section 17 of the PC Act and this order was passed
     on consideration of relevant materials inasmuch as it was passed
     on the basis of a source report dated 05.10.2023.
8.   There is no provision for a preliminary enquiry under Section 13 or
     Section 17 of the PC Act. The second proviso to Section 17 of the
     PC Act does not speak of a preliminary enquiry. It was only in Lalita
     Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1 that
     this Court had held that before proceeding against a public servant
     in matters of corruption, it is desirable to have a preliminary enquiry.
     Much before Lalita Kumari (Supra), this Court in P. Sirajuddin v.
     State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595 had observed that “before a
612                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts
       of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct
       of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged
       against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into
       the allegations by a responsible officer.” Relying on this judgement,
       Lalita Kumari (Supra) had put the corruption matters under the
       category of cases in which preliminary enquiry may be made before
       registration of FIR. The relevant portion of Lalita Kumari (Supra)
       reads as follows:
            “117. In the context of offences relating to corruption, this
            Court in P. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras,
            (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] expressed the
            need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against
            public servants.
            …..
            Conclusion/Directions
            120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
                  …..
                  120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary
                  inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts
                  and circumstances of each case. The category of
                  cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made
                  are as under:
                  (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
                  (b) Commercial offences
                  (c) Medical negligence cases
                  (d) Corruption cases
                  (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches
                  in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over
                  3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without
                  satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

       The learned counsel for the State of Karnataka would, however,
       argue that once a detailed source report is there before the SP,
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         613

          State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava.H.D. & Anr.


     explaining the reasons for initiation of proceedings and when details
     are given, a formal preliminary enquiry may not be necessary as all
     the relevant material is already there before the SP.
9.   The source report was prepared by respondent no.2-Deputy
     Superintendent of Police (DSP) and the same was submitted to the
     SP. The source report dated 05.10.2023 reads as follows:
           “To
           The Superintendent of Police-01
           Karnataka Lokayukta
           Bangalore City Division
           Bangalore
           Sir
           Sub: Submission of Source Report in respect of Sri
           Channakeshava H.D. Executive Engineer, Karnataka
           Electricity Supply Corporation Limited, presently working
           at BESCOM, Jayanagar Division, Banashankari I stage,
           Bangalore for acquisition of wealth disproportionate to his
           known source of income-Reg:
           With reference to the subject cited above, it is learnt as
           per the basic information secured that Sri Channakeshava
           H.D. Executive Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Supply
           Corporation Limited, presently working at BESCOM,
           Jayanagar Division, Banashankari I stage, Bangalore has
           acquired properties disproportionate to his income.
           …….
           Sri Channakeshava joined the services of Karnataka
           Electricity Supply Corporation Limited, Munirabad on
           11-11-1998 as Assistant Engineer and then promoted as
           Executive Engineer in BESCOM, Koramangala division and
           thereafter worked in Hebbal Division and at present he is
           working as Executive Engineer (V) in Jayanagar Division.
           SOURCE OF CORRUPTION
           There is information that during his Government tenure of
           service he has acquired illegal properties excessively in
           the names of third parties (benami) and also in the names
           of his family members.’
614                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Then after giving details of the assets of the officer, source report
       concludes as follows:
            “As stated above, it is prime facie found that Sri
            Channakeshava H.D. has acquired properties
            disproportionate to his known source of income from the
            check period i.e., from the date of joining in Government
            service, from 11-11-1998 till 30-09-2023 to the tune of
            Rs. 6,64,67,000/- which works out to 92.54%. It is also
            learnt that the above S.G.O. might be possessing some
            more irregular/disproportionate properties elsewhere in
            Bangalore City and other places either in his name or in the
            names of third parties ( benami ). If search is made in his
            own house at Bangalore and other houses at Srirampura
            Main road, Amruthahalli, Jakkur, Father-in-law’s house
            at Nagawara, the place of work of the S.G.O., and the
            residence of his sister, there are possibilities of finding
            some more properties both movable and immovable,
            gold, silver articles, cash and bank deposits in excess
            disproportionate to his known source of income. Hence
            it is requested to take suitable legal action against the
            above-mentioned Government Servant by a registering
            a case under section section 13(l)(b) read with section
            13(2) of the PC Act 1988.”
10. According to this source report, it was prima facie found that
    respondent no.1 had acquired assets disproportionate to his
    known sources of income during the check period i.e. 11.11.1998
    to 30.09.2023, to the tune of Rs.6,64,67,000. Based on this source
    report, which is nothing but a kind of preliminary enquiry, an order
    was passed by the SP directing the registration of an FIR against
    respondent no.1.
11. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, senior advocate appearing for the appellant
    would rely upon the judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka
    v. T.N Sudhakar Reddy 2025 SCC OnLine SC 382 to contend that
    an enquiry before registration of FIR under PC Act is not mandatory.
    After considering the law as laid down in Lalita Kumari (Supra),
    this Court in T.N Sudhakar Reddy (Supra) observed as follows:
            “19. … The necessity of a preliminary inquiry depends
            on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        615

          State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava.H.D. & Anr.


           For instance, corruption cases fall into a category where
           a preliminary inquiry ‘may be made’.
           20. The use of the term ‘may be made’ as noted in Lalita
           Kumari (supra) underscores that conducting such an inquiry
           is discretionary in nature and not a mandatory obligation.
           21. Following the rationale of Lalita Kumari (supra), this
           Court in Managipet (supra) held that while the decision
           in Lalita Kumari (supra) noted that a preliminary inquiry
           was desirable in cases of alleged corruption, this does
           not vest a right in the accused to demand a preliminary
           inquiry. Whether the preliminary inquiry is required to be
           conducted or not will depend on the peculiar facts and
           circumstances of each case, and it cannot be said to be
           a mandatory requirement, in the absence of which, an FIR
           cannot be registered against the accused in corruption-
           related matters.”
                                                (Emphasis supplied)

     Further, in the said case, this Court held that:
           “51. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that:
           a…..
           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.
                                                (Emphasis Supplied)

12. To sum up, this Court has held that in matters of corruption a
    preliminary enquiry although desirable, but 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.
616                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


13. All the same, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior advocate for respondent
    no.1, would argue that respondent no.1 was never given a chance to
    explain his position before the registration of FIR. He would, further,
    argue that FIR has been used as an instrument to harass the public
    servant and this is a case where no prior notice or hearing was given
    to the officer (respondent no.1), which could have taken place if a
    preliminary enquiry had been held.
14. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, senior counsel, has relied upon a recent Three-
    Judge Bench decision of this Court in CBI v. Thommandru Hannah
    Vijayalakshmi (2021) 18 SCC 135 where it was specifically stated
    that an accused public servant does not have any right to explain
    the alleged disproportionate assets before filing of an FIR. We are
    also of the opinion that this is the correct legal position as there is
    no inherent right of a public servant to be heard at this stage.
15. In view of the above, it is clear that preliminary enquiry was not
    mandated in the present case, considering that detailed information
    was already there before the SP in the form of the source report
    referred above. We have also gone through the order passed by
    the SP, directing registration of FIR against respondent no.1, which
    reflects that the SP had passed that order on the basis of material
    placed before him in the form of the source report.
16. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
    considered opinion that the High Court ought not to have quashed
    the FIR in the present case. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and
    impugned order dated 25.04.2024 is hereby set aside.
17. Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey