Karnataka High Court
Ningappa G @ Ningappa Savant vs State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 ®
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8135 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
NINGAPPA G @ NINGAPPA SAVANT
S/O GUDIYAPPA
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
ADD. VTC., TALIKATTI
HOLALAKERE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 539.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH P.DALAWAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION
Digitally signed
BANGALORE CITY
by SAMREEN M S BUILDING - 01
AYUB REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
DESHNUR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE - 01
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
DHARWAD
BENCH
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.28/2025 REGISTERED BY THE
LOKAYUKTHA P.S BANGALORE CITY PENDING ON THE FILE OF 23RD
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL COURT AT BANGALORE
FOR THE O/P/U/S 7A AND 7 (a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
1988 AT DOCUMENT NO.1.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.07.2025
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CAV ORDER
In this petition, petitioner-sole accused seeks quashing of
the impugned FIR registered in Crime No.28/2025 by the
Respondent-Lokayukta against the petitioner for the alleged
offences punishable under Section 7(a) & 7A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act') and for other reliefs.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the petition are as
under:
On 30.05.2025, the Superintendent of Police (Co-ordination
and Training), Lokayukta lodged a complaint with the Additional
Director General of Police (ADGP), Lokayukta, requesting
investigation and taking of suitable action against the petitioner for
the alleged offences punishable under Section 7(a) & 7A of the P.C
Act. The ADGP, Lokayukta referred the said complaint to the
Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, who directed the Police
Inspector, Lokayukta, to conduct an enquiry and submit a report.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the said Police Inspector submitted a report to the
S.P, Lokayukta, who directed the Dy.S.P, Lokayukta, to receive the
complaint/report and register an FIR, pursuant to which, the Dy.S.P
registered the impugned FIR in Crime No. 28/2025 against
petitioner - sole accused for alleged offences punishable under
Section 7(a) & 7A of the P.C Act. Aggrieved by the impugned FIR,
petitioner-accused is before this Court by way of the present
petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Senior counsel for the respondent-Lokayuktha and perused the
material on record.
4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in
the petition and referring to the material on record, Learned
counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned
complaint dated 30.05.2025 in order to contend that the petitioner
who was undisputedly not public servant within the meaning of
Section 2(c) of the P.C Act cannot be incriminated for alleged
offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the P.C.Act, which
applies to only public servants and not to the petitioner. It was
submitted that neither the complaint dated 30.05.2025 nor the
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
report dated 02.06.2025 discloses or makes out commission of the
alleged offences under Section 7A of the P.C.Act by the petitioner.
It was further submitted that the mandatory preliminary enquiry was
not conducted by the respondent prior to registration of the
impugned FIR, which is vitiated and deserves to be quashed.
4.1 Learned counsel further submitted that even the report
dated 02.06.2025 was not merely a preliminary inquiry report but a
detailed investigation report prior to registration of the FIR which is
impermissible in law. It was therefore submitted that the impugned
FIR is contrary to facts and law and the provisions contained in
Section 7(a) and 7A of the P.C Act and the same deserves to be
quashed. In support of his submissions learned counsel would
place reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) H.N. Rishbud v. State by Delhi Admn - (1954)2 SCC 934;
(ii) Lalitha Kumari v. State of UP - (2014) 2 SCC 1;
(iii) Kulandaisamy v. State - Crl.A No.1224/2025 dated
07.03.2025;
(iv) Ashwini v. Karnataka Lokayukta - Crl.P No.8884/2024
dated 02.06.2025;
(v) Shivraj v. State - Crl.P.No.7568/2024 dated 02.06.2025;
(vi) Usha v. State by Lokayukta - W.P No.26705/2024 dated
02.06.2025;
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
(vii) State v. Jitender Kumar Singh - (2014)11 SCC 724.
5. Per Contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondent-
Lokayuktha would reiterate the various contentions urged in the
statement of objections and submits that the complaint clearly
makes out and discloses prima facie commission of the offence
punishable under Section 7A of the P.C.Act by the petitioner. It was
submitted that in pursuance of the complaint dated 30.05.2025, an
enquiry report was obtained from the Police Inspector dated
02.06.2025 which confirmed/affirmed the allegations made in the
complaint. It was further submitted that the said report dated
02.06.2025 was a mere preliminary inquiry report and not a
detailed investigation report as contended by the petitioner and the
same read together with the complaint dated 30.05.2025 would
clearly disclose commission of the offence under Section 7A of the
P.C.Act by the petitioner.
5.1 Learned Senior counsel invited my attention to the
impugned FIR in order to point out that along with the petitioner,
other unknown/unidentified accused persons have also been
shown as 'others' in the FIR and all such guilty persons would also
be included/arraigned as additional accused persons after
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
investigation by the Investigating Officer who would be entitled to
invoke additional provisions also, i.e., Sections 7, 8, 12 etc., of the
P.C Act at the time of filing the charge sheet and the said accused
persons may include public servants viz., BBMP officials, State
Excise Department officials, Lokayukta officials, staff etc., and as
such, the question of interfering with the investigation at its very
nascent / initial stage and thereby quashing the impugned FIR
would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
It was therefore submitted that there is no merit in the petition and
the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions,
learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon the following
judgments:
(i) Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra - (2021)19 SCC 401;
(ii) CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh - (2003) 6 SCC 175;
(iii) Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh - (2012) 3
SCC 64;
(iv) State of M.P. v. Ram Singh - (2000) 5 SCC 88.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
contentions and perused the material on record.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be
profitable to extract Section 7A of the P.C. Act which has been
invoked against the petitioner, who is a non-public servant; the said
provision reads as under:
7A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant
by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal
influence.--Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain
from another person for himself or for any other person any
undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public
servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his
personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a
public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause
to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by
another public servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than three years but which
may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
8. The aforesaid provision, Section 7A was inserted vide
Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018(Act No.16 of
2018) w.e.f 26.07.2018; under the said Amendment Act, in addition
to inserting Section 7A which is a new provision governing non-
public servants, various other provisions viz., Sections 2, 4, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 17-A and a new Chapter IV-A were also
substituted/inserted under the Amendment Act.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. Section 7A of the PC Act deals with a private person
taking undue advantage to influence a public servant when such
private person acts as a proxy or intermediary for obtaining an
undue advantage from a public servant; this provision focuses on
the taking of undue advantage by a private/non-public servant to
influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means; it seeks to
indict a private person/non-public servant who uses undue
influence or means for personal gain to induce a public servant to
perform a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear from
performing one and it involves corrupt or illegal acts performed by
an intermediary to influence a public servant; it is significant to note
that the offence punishable under Section 7A is different/distinct
from the direct bribe-taking by a public servant under Section 7 and
Section 7A deals with situation where a third party attempts to
influence a public servant using undue advantage; while a demand
is often a factor for offences under Section 7, Section 7A also
includes scenarios where a non-public servant accepts or obtains
an undue advantage for improper influence and the expression
"whoever" includes the person taking undue advantage to influence
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
a public servant, potentially extending to private individuals acting
as proxies for public servants.
10. As stated supra, the impugned FIR registered under
Section 7(a) and Section 7A of the PC Act arises out of a
Complaint dated 30.05.2025 and Report dated 02.06.2025, both of
which (translated copies) are extracted as hereunder:-
Complaint
30.05.2025
To,
Additional Director General of Police,
Karnataka Lokayukta.
Bangalore.
Respected Sir,
Sub: Regarding the information received from the
informant that the Lokayukta is acting as an intermediary for
the police officers and making phone calls to government
officials on their behalf to extort money in order to avoid
action against them.
-------
Regarding the above matter, I am working in the
Lokayukta office since about one and a half years. Several
government officials/officers have informed that they are
receiving telephone calls from the Lokayukta officers of the
rank of Police Inspector, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
ADGP, IGP stating that, complaints/information have been
received against them. Hence, it is decided to take action by
conducting a raid on them. The Information is received the to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
avoid such a raid or action several calls have been made
demanding illegal gratification and also extorting money from
several officers of various departments.
It has also been noticed that several government
officials/officers on receiving such calls purporting to be from
the phony officers of Lokayukta have paid thousands/lakhs of
rupees by cash or through phonepay.
It has come to the knowledge that, some of such
officers personally through their acquaintances enquired in
the office of Lokayukta and came to know about the genuine
Lokayukta officers have not threatened any such
officers/officials. Some of the officers/officials have filed
complaint regarding loss of money to the concerned police
stations. The complaints are registered and investigations
are under progress. It has come to the knowledge that even
then some persons are in the habit of extorting money by
threatening government officers.
After some officials inquired about this at the
Lokayukta office on their own or through their acquaintances,
information was obtained that the real officials were not the
ones who threatened them and some officials have filed
complaints with the concerned police stations regarding the
loss of money. It is known that a complaint has been
registered and the investigation is in progress, however, it is
known that some individuals are involved in intimidating
government officials and extorting money.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
Further, it is noticed that, these persons are
purchasing new sim cards and they are uploading the
pictures of the Lokayukta, Upa- Lokayukta and Senior
officers and Junior officers of Lokayukta to the DP of
WhatsApp and true caller to mislead the government
officers/officials to make them believe that the Lokayukta
officials are talking to them and committing extortion.
Thereafter, through the informants contacted the
extorted government officers/officials and collected
information that, a person by name Sri. Ningappa having
Mobile No. 9743352339 had called the Senior Officers of
Excise Department's Bangalore city and also some officers
of BBMP through WhatsApp and also sent WhatsApp
messages informing that, complaint are filed against them in
the office of Lokayukta and there is a possibility of
conduction raid. It has come to the knowledge that the said
person has also threatened the officers/officials met them
and extorted money form them.
The said person is a frequent visitor to the Bangalore
Lokayukta office. It is known from the informants that he is in
contact with some officials. This person contacted the
Bangalore Lokayukta officials. Informants have learned that
information about officials from other departments is being
collected and money is being collected from them.
It is reliable learnt from informants that on Monday the
above said person may meet some officers to collect
information regarding officers of other department for
extorting money. Hence, this report is submitted requesting
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
appointment of an officer of an Lokayukta for investigation
and to take suitable legal action.
With regards
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
S. Badrinath
Superintendent of Police
(Co-ordination and Training)
Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru
Received complaint at 03:00 pm on 02.06.2025 as
per the instructions of Superintendent of Police, Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bengaluru City-2. and registered to Bengaluru
City Lokayukta Police Station Crime No.28/20205 for the
offences punishable Under Section, 7A, 7(a), P.C. Act-1988
(Amendment Act-2018)
Sd/-
02.06.2025
Deputy Superintendent of Police
Karnataka Lokayukta,Bengaluru City.
Report
Date: 02.06.2025
To,
Honorable Superintendent of Police.
Bangalore City-2.
Karnataka Lokayukta.
Bangalore.
Subject: Regarding the investigation of the complaint
and submission of a report.
----------
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
The Honorable Superintendent of Police on
30.05.2025 has directed me to investigate the complaint
filed by the complainant Shri.S.Badrinath, Superintendent of
Police (Co-ordination and Training), Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bangalore and submit a report. In furtherance of the same, I
have investigated the complaint filed by the Honourable
Superintendent of Police, and the summary of the said
complaint is as follows: Several government officials have
informed that the officers of the Lokayukta namely Police
Inspectors, Deputy Superintendents of Police,
Superintendents of Police, ADGP, IGP, stating that several
applications information and complaints are received
against them. It is also informed that, it is decided to take
action or conduct raid against such officers. It is further
informed that, they had demanded money/illegal
gratification to avoid such action or raid by making frequent
calls by phone and also extorted money.
It has also been noticed in the complaint that several
government officials, fearing such calls, are handing over
thousands/lakhs of rupees in cash/phone pay to the callers
in the guise of fake Lokayukta officials.
After some officers inquired about this on their own or
through their acquaintances in the Lokayukta office,
information was obtained that the real officers have not
threatened. In that some officers had filed a complaint with
the concerned police stations regarding the loss of money. It
is known that a complaints have been registered and the
investigation is in progress. However, it is known that some
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
individuals are involved in the racket of threatening
government officials and extorting money.
Further, it is noticed that, these persons are
purchasing new sim card and they are uploading the
pictures of Lokayukta, Upa-Lokayukta and Senior officers in
Lokayukta to the DP of WhatsApp and true caller and
intimidating them in a way that makes them believe that the
Lokayukta officials are talking and they extort money from
Government officers.
The information was collected with regard to such
extortion from government officials was collected through
the informants. By such information it is found that one Sri
Ningappa Mobile No.9743352339 was making calls and
sending messages to senior officials of the Excise ,
Department Bangalore City Divisions and some officials of
BBMP through WhatsApp saying that, there are complaints
against you in Lokayukta office and there is a possibility of
conducting raid on them. Above said person had also
demanded to meet him and pay money to avoid such raid. It
is known that he is illegally extorting money by threatening
such officials.
It is learnt from the informants that, the above said
person is frequently visiting the Bangalore Lokayukta office
and meeting some officers of Lokayukta to collect
information regarding govt. officers of other departments for
extorting money after contacting them.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
The complainant has stated in his complaint that,
information is received that the said person is likely to visit
Lokayukta office on Monday to collect information about
govt. servants and extort money.
As stated in the said complaint, about a week ago,
while I was collecting information from the informant about
the persons committing such crimes, a case was registered
at the New Layout (Hosa Badaavane) Police Station of
Tumkur City under Section 204, 308(2), 62 BNSS-2023.
The accused in the said case has put the photo of the
Superintendent of Police of Bangalore City Lokayukta Police
Station, Bangalore City-2, one Dr. Vamshi Krishna as his
DP on his mobile number 8317540753 and has called the
Regional Transport Officer, Mr. A.V. Prasad, on his mobile
number: 9449864006 on WhatsApp and demanded money.
Similarly, it has been found that he has called some officers
in Bangalore and demanded money.
As per the complaint averments while the information
was being collected from the informants, the one Ningappa
Savant mention in the complaint had called senior Excise
Officers and demanded money. In that regard met the
excise officers in their office and enquired. The said officials
revealed that, they received WhatsApp call from Mob
No.9743352339 and the caller had demanded them to meet
him. The some Screen shorts of Mob. Nos. were sent by
WhatsApp where in a number was saved as Patil Sir.
Lokayukta but the same was deleted(hidden) with a red
color. Further whatsapp message was sent threatening that,
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
Tomorrow 7 District Lokayukta Raid Be Alert Don't
Neglect, and demanded money. Similarly, it is leant that the
Executive engineer from BBMP has also received such a
phone call. Hence, he was contacted on phone who
revealed that he has call form Mob. No. 9743352339 and
the caller stated that he is a Lokayukta officer by name
Ningappa, and there is complaint against him and asked to
meet him. But the said officer had not agreed to meet him.
He further revealed that, two other engineers of said
department had also similar phone call and they have also
not met the said person.
It is found that, the said person visits the Bengaluru
Lokayukta office a couple of times a week and meet some
senior Lokayukta officers. Similarly, the officers mentioned
above have also stated that they are acquainted with the
senior officers of your Lokayukta office. It is apparent that
the said person is committing such acts.
Therefore, since the allegations in the said complaint
appear to be an offence under Section, 7A, 7(a), P.C. Act-
1988 (Amendment Act-2018), I have submitted a report to
take action against the accused by registering a case and
investigation may be taken up.
With best regards,
Yours faithfully,
(Vijaykrishna N.)
Police Inspector-11
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
11. A perusal of the various allegations made in the
impugned complaint and report will clearly indicate that all
necessary ingredients constituting the alleged offences are clearly
set out and are present in the complaint and report; in fact, the
complaint specially states that the accused accepted, obtained and
attempted to obtain from Government officials i.e., BBMP officials,
State Excise Department officials, for himself and / or Lokayuktha
police and officials undue pecuniary advantage / benefit as a
motive and reward to induce the public servants i.e., the
Lokayuktha police and officials by corrupt means, illegal means
and by exercise of his personal influence so as to improperly and /
or dishonestly cause the public servants i.e., Lokayuktha police and
officials from doing / performing their public duty in conducting raid
and / or proceeding against the said Government officials of the
BBMP, Excise department etc., and / or their properties, thereby
indicating that there exists prima facie allegations against the
accused as contemplated under Section 7A of the P.C.Act, thereby
warranting / require investigation which cannot be stifled/curtailed
in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
12. It is well settled that for the purpose of embarking upon
investigation pursuant to registration of an FIR, all that is required
is, disclosure of all facts and details relating to the offence reported
and an FIR is not to be treated as a encyclopaedia; in the case of
Tapan Kumar Singh's case supra, the Apex Court held as
under:-
"19. The High Court fell into an error in thinking that
the information received by the police could not be treated
as a first information report since the allegation was vague
inasmuch as it was not stated from whom the sum of rupees
one lakh was demanded and accepted. Nor was it stated
that such demand or acceptance was made as motive or
reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, or for
showing or forbearing to show in exercise of his official
function, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering,
attempting to render any service or disservice to any
person. Thus there was no basis for a police officer to
suspect the commission of an offence which he was
empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate.
20. It is well settled that a first information report is not
an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a
report about the commission of an offence though he may
not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may
not even know how the occurrence took place. A first
informant need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
be able to disclose in great detail all aspects of the offence
committed. What is of significance is that the information
given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence
and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the
police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable
offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the
basis of the information given suspects the commission of a
cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or
satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If
he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information
received, that a cognizable offence may have been
committed, he is bound to record the information and
conduct an investigation. At this stage it is also not
necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of
the information. It is only after a complete investigation that
he may be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of
the information. Similarly, even if the information does not
furnish all the details he must find out those details in the
course of investigation and collect all the necessary
evidence. The information given disclosing the commission
of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigative
machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence,
and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The
true test is whether the information furnished provides a
reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which the
police officer concerned is empowered under Section 156 of
the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to
record the information and proceed to investigate the case
either himself or depute any other competent officer to
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
conduct the investigation. The question as to whether the
report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the
manner of occurrence, whether the accused is named, and
whether there is sufficient evidence to support the
allegations are all matters which are alien to the
consideration of the question whether the report discloses
the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the
information does not give full details regarding these
matters, the investigating officer is not absolved of his duty
to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can.
21. In the instant case the information received by the
Superintendent of Police, CBI clearly spells out the offence
of criminal misconduct under Section 13 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, inasmuch as there is a clear
allegation that the respondent has demanded and accepted
a sum of rupees one lakh by way of illegal gratification. The
allegation is not as vague and bald as the High Court
makes it out to be. There is a further assertion that the
respondent is carrying with him the said sum of rupees one
lakh and is to board the Gitanjali Express going to Nagpur.
The allegation certainly gives rise to a suspicion that a
cognizable offence may have been committed by the
respondent, which the Superintendent of Police, CBI was
empowered to investigate. Therefore if the Superintendent
of Police, CBI proceeded to intercept the respondent and
investigate the case, he did only that which he was in law
obliged to do. His taking up the investigation, therefore,
cannot be faulted.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
22. The High Court has also quashed the GD entry and
the investigation on the ground that the information did not
disclose all the ingredients of the offence, as if the informant
is obliged to reproduce the language of the section, which
defines "criminal misconduct" in the Prevention of
Corruption Act. In our view the law does not require the
mentioning of all the ingredients of the offence in the first
information report. It is only after a complete investigation
that it may be possible to say whether any offence is made
out on the basis of evidence collected by the investigating
agency.
23. The High Court also held that before conducting the
search and seizure the mandatory requirement of Section
165 was not fulfilled inasmuch as the investigating officer
did not record in writing the grounds for his belief as
required by the said section. It is premature at this stage to
consider whether search and seizure was done in
accordance with law as that is a question which has to be
considered by the court, if the accused is ultimately put up
for trial and he challenges the search and seizure made.
Similarly, the question as to whether the GD entry, or the
FIR formally recorded on 20-10-1990, is the FIR in the case,
is a matter which may be similarly agitated before the court.
Where two informations are recorded and it is contended
before the court that the one projected by the prosecution
as the FIR is not really the FIR but some other information
recorded earlier is the FIR, that is a matter which the court
trying the accused has jurisdiction to decide. Similarly, the
mentioning of a particular section in the FIR is not by itself
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
conclusive as it is for the court to frame charges having
regard to the material on record. Even if a wrong section is
mentioned in the FIR, that does not prevent the court from
framing appropriate charges."
13. So also, in Neeharika Infrastructure's case supra, the
Apex Court held as under:-
"33.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a
cognizable offence.
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into
the cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence
or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go
on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in
the "rarest of rare cases" (not to be confused with the
formation in the context of death penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry
as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping
the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the
State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one
ought not to tread over the other sphere.
33.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping.
33.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the
Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the
stage of investigation of offences.
33.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice.
33.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court should
not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police
must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would
be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate
which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure.
33.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very
wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to
be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent
duty on the court.
33.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks
fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and
the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the
parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR
1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , has
the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by
the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the
power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider
whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of
a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to
consider on merits whether or not the merits of the
allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court
has to permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR."
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
14. In the case of Sheikh Abdul Mazeed and others Vs.
Union Territory - MANU/JK/1118/2023.., the High Court of Jammu
and Kashmir and Ladakh held as under:
"65. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioners are
that they have demanded bribe of Rs. 3,500/-and the trap was
laid and the money was also recovered, it will attract the penal
provisions of the Act against the petitioners in the light of Section
7A of PC Act. The language of Section 7A is explicit which
provides that whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain
from another person for himself or for any other person any
undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public
servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his
personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a
public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to
forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another
public servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
66. It would be advantageous to reproduce Section 7A of
PC.Act:-
"7A. Taking undue advantage to influence public
servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of
personal influence.-Whoever accepts or obtains or
attempts to obtain from another person for himself or
for any other person any undue advantage as a motive
or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or
illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence
to perform or to cause performance of a public duty
improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to
forbear such public duty by such public servant or by
another public servant, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
three years but which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine."
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
71. Thus, it may safely be concluded that while Section 7 and 7A
are independent to each other but Section 7A has been inserted
with sole object to reach aiders and abettors of the offence. It,
therefore, extends all the persons whether they are or are not
public servant. However, where a person accepting bribe is a
public servant, the Section for charging him is Section 7 of PC
Act 1988, and for a private person, Section 7A would be
applicable. Therefore, Section 7A gives wider power to the
authorities to initiate action against a private individual, which
means involvement of public servant is not a condition precedent
for registering of FIR.
74. This Court is of the firm view that a zero tolerance
towards corruption should be the top notch priority for ensuring
system based and policy driven, transparent and responsive
governance. Corruption cannot be annihilated but strategically
be dwindled by reducing monopoly and enabling transparency in
decision making. However, fortification of social and moral fabric
must be an integral component of long-term policy for nation
building to accomplish corruption free society.
75. In furtherance of the fight against corruption, a broad
interpretation to the provisions of this statute is required to be
given and the arms of this Act are required to be extended to the
maximum. The offences under the P.C.Act can be invoked not
only against a public servant but also against a person, who by
virtue of his office has been discharging 'public duty'.
76. I draw support from the judgment titled State of Gujarat
Vs. Manusukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah reported a
MANU/SC/0417/2020, wherein the Apex Court has observed as
under:-
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
"...Today, corruption in our country not only poses a
grave danger to the concept of constitutional
governance, it also threatens the very foundation of
Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude
of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the
concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It
cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all
rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes
development and undermines justice, liberty, equality,
fraternity which are the core values in our preambular
vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-
corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in
such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against
corruption. That is to say in a situation where two
constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has
to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to
the one which seeks to perpetuate it."
77. When the legislature has introduced such a
comprehensive definition of "public servant" to achieve the
purpose of punishing and curbing the growing menace of
corruption in the society imparting public duty, it would be
apposite not to limit the contents of the definition clause by
construction which would be against the spirit of the statute.
78. Since this Court has already held the petitioners to be
public servant performing the public duty, therefore, the
respondent has rightly initiated action against the petitioners by
registering FIR under Section 7 and 7A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
79. The argument of learned senior counsel for the
petitioners that the respondent has no power to register the case
against the petitioners under the provisions of P.C. Act for a
simple reason that the petitioners are not public servants, is
unsustainable in light of what has been discussed hereinabove."
15. A perusal of the aforesaid complaint and report will
indicate that the information is said to have been from several
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
government officials to the effect they had received telephone calls
informing them that there is a likelihood of a raid or trap or other
proceedings against them arising out of complaint/applications as
planned by Lokayukta police and officials and in order to avoid the
same, bribe amount was demanded again and again pressurizing
them and harassing them since several days and extorting money
from them; that several government officers have fallen prey to the
said telephone calls from phony Lokayukta officers and have paid
cash/electronic funds transfer in thousands/lakhs of rupees through
cash or through PhonePe and that upon enquiries of Lokayukta
office, the said officers came to know that there was no such
demand from any of the officers in the Lokayukta; that some
government officers have given complaints to the concerned police
stations and investigation is under progress despite which some
persons are continuing to threaten government officers and
extorting money from them.
16. It is further alleged for the purpose of committing these
acts, the said persons had purchased new sim cards and displayed
the photographs of the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Hon'ble Upalokayukta
and other senior/junior police officers on their IDs in Truecaller app
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
or WhatsApp DP and had spoken to the said government officers in
such a way so as to create belief in them about their identity and
extorted money from the said government officers; that the
informants contacted the extorted government officers/ officials and
collected information having a mobile number 9743352339 had
contacted senior Excise Department officials and BBMP officials
through WhatsApp calls and messages and that the petitioner had
communicated with them to meet him and threatened them and
extorted/collected money from them on this pretext; that the
petitioner was frequently visiting the Lokayukta office at Bangalore
and was in contact with the Lokayukta officials and information
about other government officials from other Departments and
money being collected from them have also been learnt by the
informants; that as per the information received, the petitioner was
likely to meet some officers on Monday (02.06.2025) for the
purpose of collecting information regarding officers of other
Departments for extorting money from them also; that a case was
registered against an unknown accused in Tumakuru who had put
his WhatsApp DP as a Lokayukta official and had called up the
RTO, A.V.Prasad on his mobile number and demanded money in
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
addition to calling other officers in Bangalore and that information
regarding further offences committed by the petitioner was received
by the respondent.
17. A perusal of the complaint and report is sufficient to
come to the sole and unmistakable conclusion that prima facie
necessary ingredients constituting offences punishable under
Section 7A of the P.C.Act have been prima facie made out and
disclosed as against the petitioner against whom, grave and
serious allegations of corruption have been made by the
respondent. In the light of detailed allegations contained in the
complaint and the report and the provisions contained in Section
7A of the P.C Act, I am of the considered opinion that prima facie
the matter warrants investigation to be conducted by the
Investigating Officer and consequently, it will be impermissible in
law to scuttle/interfere with the investigation at this
nascent/premature stage and consequently, the contention urged
by the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted.
18. In Ram Singh's case supra, the Apex Court held as
under:-
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
"8. Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like
cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to maliganise
(sic) the polity of the country leading to disastrous
consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only
contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle.
Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being
incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The
socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded
communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own
weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social
order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted
against them. It affects the economy and destroys the
cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it
is likely to cause turbulence -- shaking of the socio-
economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy,
effective and vibrating society.
9. The menace of corruption was found to have
enormously increased by the First and Second World War
conditions. Corruption, at the initial stages, was considered
confined to the bureaucracy which had the opportunities to
deal with a variety of State largesse in the form of contracts,
licences and grants. Even after the war the opportunities for
corruption continued as large amounts of government
surplus stores were required to be disposed of by the public
servants. As a consequence of the wars the shortage of
various goods necessitated the imposition of controls and
extensive schemes of post-war reconstruction involving the
disbursement of huge sums of money which lay in the
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
control of the public servants giving them a wide discretion
with the result of luring them to the glittering shine of wealth
and property. In order to consolidate and amend the laws
relating to prevention of corruption and matters connected
thereto, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was enacted
which was amended from time to time. In the year 1988 a
new Act on the subject being Act 49 of 1988 was enacted
with the object of dealing with the circumstances,
contingencies and shortcomings which were noticed in the
working and implementation of the 1947 Act. The law
relating to prevention of corruption was essentially made to
deal with the public servants, not as understood in common
parlance but specifically defined in the Act.
10. The Act was intended to make effective provisions
for the prevention of bribery and corruption rampant
amongst the public servants. It is a social legislation
intended to curb illegal activities of the public servants and is
designed to be liberally construed so as to advance its
object. Dealing with the object underlying the Act this Court
in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay [(1984) 2 SCC 183 : 1984
SCC (Cri) 172] held: (SCC p. 200, para 18)
"18. The 1947 Act was enacted, as its long title shows,
to make more effective provision for the prevention of
bribery and corruption. Indisputably, therefore, the
provisions of the Act must receive such construction at
the hands of the court as would advance the object
and purpose underlying the Act and at any rate not
defeat it. If the words of the statute are clear and
unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the court to give
effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the
provision. The question of construction arises only in
the event of an ambiguity or the plain meaning of the
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
words used in the statute would be self-defeating. The
court is entitled to ascertain the intention of the
legislature to remove the ambiguity by construing the
provision of the statute as a whole keeping in view
what was the mischief when the statute was enacted
and to remove which the legislature enacted the
statute. This rule of construction is so universally
accepted that it need not be supported by precedents.
Adopting this rule of construction, whenever a
question of construction arises upon ambiguity or
where two views are possible of a provision, it would
be the duty of the court to adopt that construction
which would advance the object underlying the Act,
namely, to make effective provision for the prevention
of bribery and corruption and at any rate not defeat it."
11. Procedural delays and technicalities of law should
not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved
by the Act. The overall public interest and the social object is
required to be kept in mind while interpreting various
provisions of the Act and deciding cases under it."
19. In the instant case, the complaint and report prima facie
contain all necessary ingredients constituting the offences alleged
against the petitioner and in the light of the aims and objects of the
P.C Act, in particular, incorporation/insertion of Section 7A of the
P.C.Act relating to even non-public servants such as the petitioner
vide the Amendment Act 2018, I am of the considered opinion that
the question of quashing the impugned FIR and thereby
preventing/scuttling/interfering with the investigation would not
arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
20. It is contended that the respondent had not conducted
the requisite preliminary inquiry as directed by the Apex Court in
Lalitha Kumari's case supra prior to registration of the impugned
FIR and the report of the Police Inspector dated 02.06.2025 was
not a preliminary inquiry report but a detailed investigation report;
at the outset, it is relevant to state a perusal of the said report
dated 02.06.2025 will indicate that the same is in the nature of
preliminary inquiry report and not a detailed investigation report as
contended by the petitioner whose contention in this regard is
factually incorrect and erroneous; at any rate, even assuming that
no preliminary inquiry was conducted, as held by the Apex Court
that non-conducting of preliminary inquiry would not vitiate the FIR
as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v.
T.N. Sudhakar Reddy - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 382 as under:
" Issue A: Whether a preliminary inquiry was
mandatory before directing registration of an FIR under the
PC Act in the facts of the case at hand or whether the source
information report could be treated to be a substitute for the
preliminary inquiry?
14. It is the case of the appellant-State that preliminary
inquiry is not mandatory before registration of an FIR.
Without prejudice to the above, it is contended that the
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
source information report submitted by the Police Inspector,
Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station to the Superintendent of
Police, detailing acquisition of assets by the respondent
disproportionate to his known sources of income, itself
serves as a preliminary inquiry report as it was elaborate
enough to disclose a prima facie case for the offences
punishable under Section 13(1)(b) and Section 12 read with
Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent would urge that the Superintendent of Police
acted in gross violation of law while issuing an order to the
Deputy Superintendent of Police to register an FIR as
preliminary inquiry in 'corruption cases' is a condition
precedent for registration of the FIR. Further, preliminary
inquiry can only be conducted by a police officer, who is
competent to investigate the offence, and thus, a source
information report, however detailed, cannot be taken to be a
substitute for a preliminary inquiry.
16. In addressing this issue, we must first consider the
legal framework established by this Court in a catena of
decisions, particularly in P. Sirajuddin (supra), Lalita
Kumari (supra), Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (supra),
and Managipet (supra). This Court in P. Sirajuddin (supra)
has held that before any public servant is charged with any
acts of dishonesty, a preliminary inquiry 'must' be conducted
in order to obviate incalculable harm to the reputation of that
person. The relevant para from P. Sirajuddin is extracted
herein below:--
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
"17. Before a 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 inquiry into the
allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a
report against a person, specially one who like the appellant
occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless,
would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular
but to the department he belonged to, in
general..."(emphasis supplied)
17. However, the authoritative pronouncement of law
in respect of registration of the FIR emerges from the
decision of the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra)
wherein, the issue before the Court was whether a police
officer is obligated to register an FIR upon receiving
information regarding the commission of a cognizable
offence under Section 154 of the CrPC (corresponding
Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
202317) or whether it is essential to conduct a preliminary
inquiry to verify the information before registration of the FIR.
This Court held that under Section 154 of the CrPC, a police
officer is required to register an FIR when the information
received by him discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence, without undertaking a preliminary inquiry. However,
the Court was also cognizant of the possible misuse of the
criminal law resulting in the registration of frivolous FIRs. To
address this concern, it outlined specific 'exceptions' to the
general rule, which mandates the immediate registration of
FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offence.
The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra) held:
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
"119. Therefore, in view of various counterclaims
regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary
is only that the information given to the police must disclose
the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation,
registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no
cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then
the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the
police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry
for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a
cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the
information given clearly mentions the commission of a
cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an
FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the
stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information
is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether
the information is credible, etc. These are the issues that
have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the
stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely
whether the information given ex facie discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation,
the information given is found to be false, there is always an
option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false
FIR."(emphasis supplied)
18. The following guidelines were laid down by the
Constitution Bench governing the issues:--
"120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under
Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a
cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry,
a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain
whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases
where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a
copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first
informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not
proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of
registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action
must be taken against erring officers who do not register the
FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable
offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify
the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only
to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable
offence.
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.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive
of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry."
(emphasis supplied)
19. It was held that a preliminary inquiry is not
mandatory if the information received by the police
officer/Investigating Agency discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence. However, if the preliminary inquiry is
conducted, its scope is limited to determine whether the
information prima facie reveals commission of a cognizable
offence and does not extend to verifying its truthfulness. The
necessity of a preliminary inquiry depends on the specific
facts and circumstances of each case. For instance,
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.
22. The relevant paragraphs from Managipet (supra)
are extracted herein below:--
"33. In the present case, the FIR itself shows that the
information collected is in respect of disproportionate assets
of the accused officer. The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is
to screen wholly frivolous and motivated complaints, in
furtherance of acting fairly and objectively. Herein, relevant
information was available with the informant in respect of
prima facie allegations disclosing a cognizable
offence. Therefore, once the officer recording the FIR is
satisfied with such disclosure, he can proceed against the
accused even without conducting any inquiry or by any other
manner on the basis of the credible information received by
him. It cannot be said that the FIR is liable to be quashed for
the reason that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted.
The same can only be done if upon a reading of the entirety
of an FIR, no offence is disclosed. Reference in this regard,
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
is made to a judgment of this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] wherein, this Court
held inter alia that where the allegations made in the FIR or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused and also
where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.
34. Therefore, we hold that the preliminary inquiry
warranted in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] is not
required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases.
It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that
the type of preliminary inquiry to be conducted will depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. There are no fixed
parameters on which such inquiry can be said to be
conducted. Therefore, any formal and informal collection of
information disclosing a cognizable offence to the satisfaction
of the person recording the FIR is sufficient."(emphasis
supplied)
23. A three-judge bench of this Court in Thommandru
Hannah Vijayalakshmi (supra) extensively discussed the
judicial precedents and legal principles governing the
requirement of conducting a preliminary inquiry before
registration of an FIR. The Court affirmed the view taken by
the two-judge Bench in Managipet (supra), holding that a
preliminary inquiry may not be necessary if the officer
recording the FIR possesses relevant information which
discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The
relevant extracts from Thommandru Hannah
Vijayalakshmi (supra) are reproduced herein below:--
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
"32. [..]... we hold that since the institution of a
Preliminary inquiry in cases of corruption is not made
mandatory before the registration of an FIR under the CrPC,
PC Act or even the CBI Manual, for this Court to issue a
direction to that affect will be tantamount to stepping into the
legislative domain.
39. The precedents of this Court and the provisions of
the CBI Manual make it abundantly clear that a preliminary
inquiry is not mandatory in all cases which involve allegations
of corruption. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Lalita
Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC
1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] holds that if the information
received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence at
the outset, no preliminary inquiry would be required. It also
clarified that the scope of a preliminary inquiry is not to check
the veracity of the information received, but only to scrutinise
whether it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
Similarly, Para 9.1 of the CBI Manual notes that a preliminary
inquiry is required only if the information (whether verified or
unverified) does not disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence. Even when a preliminary inquiry is initiated, it has to
stop as soon as the officer ascertains that enough material
has been collected which discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence. A similar conclusion has been reached
by a two-Judge Bench in Managipet [State of
Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC
(Cri) 702] as well. Hence, the proposition that a preliminary
inquiry is mandatory is plainly contrary to law, for it is not only
contrary to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Lalita
Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC
1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] but would also tear apart the
framework created by the CBI Manual."(emphasis supplied)
24. Applying these principles to the case at hand, it is
perspicuous that 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.
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
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. The scope of such inquiry is naturally
narrow and limited to prevent unnecessary harassment while
simultaneously ensuring that genuine allegations of a
cognizable offence are not stifled arbitrarily. Thus, the
determination, whether a preliminary inquiry is necessary or
not will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each
case.
25. In the present case, the Police Inspector of the
Karnataka Lokayukta submitted a comprehensive source
information report dated 10th November, 2023 to the
Superintendent of Police, which included meticulous
documentation and evaluation of the assets acquired by the
respondent, which were grossly disproportionate to his
known sources of income. The respondent, during his tenure
of service in various departmental units, had acquired assets
worth Rs. 3,81,40,246/-, which were disproportionate and
almost 90.72% more than his known sources of income.
Thereupon, the Superintendent of Police took cognizance of
the source information report and concluded that the
allegations made against the respondent did constitute prima
facie offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) and Section
12 read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
26. It is clearly discernible that the source information
report dated 10th November, 2023, was in the nature of a
preliminary inquiry in itself and nothing else. The
comprehensive nature of the said report took it beyond a
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
simple complaint, as it provided a meticulous breakdown of
the respondent's monetary acquisitions. Further, the report
makes cross-referencing of official income records with
actual property acquisitions, bank deposits, and other
financial assets. In substance, the source information
report prime facie reflects a systematic pattern of financial
irregularities, wherein the discrepancy in acquisition of assets
was found to be 90.72% more than the known sources of
income of the respondent.
27. Thus, in our view the source information report
dated 10th November, 2023, served as a critical piece of
information which not only documented the financial
discrepancies but also presented a clear, prima facie picture
of disproportionate assets accumulated by the respondent
but also demanded immediate and thorough investigative
action. As we have noted above, the scope of preliminary
inquiries is not to verify the absolute truthfulness of
information, and it is only to ascertain whether a cognizable
offence is disclosed or not therefrom. The source information
report in the case at hand clearly satisfies this criterion by
comprehensively documenting 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. Thus, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred
in concluding that the FIR was liable to be quashed on
account of omission to conduct a preliminary inquiry.
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
21. So also, in the case of State of Karnataka v.
Channakeshava H.D -2025 SCC OnLine SC 753, the Apex Court
held as under:
"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.
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.
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
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."
21. The contention of the petitioner that the report dated
02.06.2025 by the Inspector of Police is not a preliminary enquiry
report but a detailed investigation report is factually incorrect, since
a perusal of the said report will clearly indicate that all that the
Police Inspector has done is noted the allegations made in the
complaint dated 30.05.2025 and had reported that his preliminary
enquiry disclosed that the petitioner was prima facie guilty of the
alleged offences and that a detailed investigation by registering an
FIR was required / warranted in the facts and circumstances of the
case and as such, this contention urged by the petitioner cannot be
accepted.
22. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that the
impugned FIR against the petitioner/non-public servant is not
maintainable for offences under Section 7(a) or 7A of the P.C.Act,
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
since no public servant was arraigned in the impugned FIR which
was registered only against the petitioner is concerned, as rightly
contended by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent -
Lolayuktha, during / after investigation, having regard to the
provisions contained in Section 173 Cr.P.C, it is always
open/permissible for the respondent to identify and include
additional accused persons including public servants who had not
been identified/included/arraigned in the impugned FIR as well
include/add additional provisions viz., Sections 7, 8, 12 etc; as
stated supra, the investigation is at a very nascent/early stage and
as such, scuttling/preventing investigation and refusing to permit
the respondent to identify and include additional accused persons
including BBMP officials, Excise officials, Lokayukta police and
officials and other public servants would clearly tantamount to
interfering with the due process of law, which is clearly
impermissible having regard to the aims and objects of P.C Act and
its amendments; in other words, since, it was not possible to
identify and include the public servants at the time of registration of
the FIR, the FIR was registered against the petitioner and others
and it was always open / permissible for the Investigating Officer to
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
add / include other accused persons including public servants after
investigation as well as add / include additional offences under the
P.C Act at the time of filing the charge sheet and consequently,
merely because the petitioner who was a non-public servant is
alone sought to be shown as an accused in the FIR at the very
inception and initial stage, the said circumstance cannot be made
the basis to interfere with the impugned FIR and prevent
investigation from being conducted by the respondent. Under these
circumstances, even this contention urged by the petitioner cannot
be accepted.
23. It is needless to state that since the present
proceedings are at a very nascent/initial stage and the present
order is made only by a prima facie examination of the material on
record, the present order and the prima facie findings/observations
made herein would not come in the way of the petitioner taking
recourse to such remedies as available in law including
approaching this Court subsequently after filing of the final report
by the respondent and as such, it cannot be said that continuation
of the investigation would cause any prejudice or hardship to the
petitioner so as to warrant invocation of the jurisdiction/powers of
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987
CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025
HC-KAR
this Court at this stage of the proceedings by quashing the FIR
which cannot be countenanced by this Court in the present petition.
24. Insofar as the other judgments relied upon by both sides
are concerned, having regard to the findings recorded by me
hereinbefore, the said judgments which were rendered in the facts
and circumstances of the said cases would not be applicable to the
facts of the instant case and as such, the same are not elaborately
dealt with in the present order.
25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of
the considered opinion that the instant case does not warrant
interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction / powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C.
/ Section 528 BNSS, 2023.
26. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby dismissed.
(ii) It is however made clear that this order and the findings/observations, if any, are for the limited/prima facie stage of challenging the impugned FIR.
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:37987 CRL.P No. 8135 of 2025 HC-KAR
(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including approaching this Court subsequently after filing of the final report by the respondent Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.