FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court

"High Court's approach is nothing but a travesty of justice... Hyper-technicality must not defeat the anti-corruption regime", In a powerful reaffirmation of the legal continuity post-state bifurcation, the Supreme Court of India on January 8, 2026, set aside a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that had quashed a series of FIRs registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Vijayawada, solely on the ground that the ACB unit was not formally notified as a “police station” under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Delivering the judgment in ‘The Joint Director (Rayalaseema), ACB Andhra Pradesh & Another vs. Dayam Peda Ranga Rao & Others’, a Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that such technical objections “cannot be permitted to subvert the object of the Prevention of Corruption Act.” The court declared, “When a Government Order is issued by way of clarification, there is no question of any retrospective application. It merely affirms what is already true in law.”

The FIRs had been registered between 2016 and 2020 by the ACB’s Central Investigation Unit at Vijayawada, a successor to the Hyderabad-based unit that earlier held jurisdiction over the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court, however, quashed these FIRs in a batch of cases on the sole ground that Vijayawada ACB was not notified afresh as a police station post the bifurcation of the State in 2014.

“The definition of ‘police station’ includes a post held by a police officer... there need not be a ritualistic notification”

At the heart of the legal controversy was the interpretation of Section 2(s) of the CrPC, which defines a “police station.” The High Court had adopted a strict construction and insisted on a formal gazette notification under this provision to validate the jurisdiction of the Vijayawada-based ACB officers.

Rejecting this view, the Supreme Court emphatically held: “Under the definition, there need not be a specific place to be declared as a police station, as even a post being held by a police officer would constitute a police station.” The Court stated that the High Court had “completely misdirected itself” by insisting on a “ritualistic notification” and ignoring the statutory scheme and settled jurisprudence.

Referring to G.O.Ms. No. 268 dated 12.09.2003, which had already declared the ACB offices as police stations across the State (including the Central Investigation Unit), the Court underscored that this notification had the force of law and continued to operate even after bifurcation by virtue of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.

“Continuity of law is a legal fiction created to prevent administrative chaos… Courts must give effect to its object”

In its detailed analysis, the Court held that the Reorganisation Act of 2014 creates a statutory fiction to ensure continuity of laws and administrative notifications. The Court pointed out that Sections 100 to 102 of the Act are “transitional provisions” meant to avoid a legal vacuum.

“There is indeed no requirement for any specific order of adoption. The State of Andhra Pradesh continues as the same State – only territories were carved out to form Telangana. The High Court’s interpretation defies this legislative scheme,” observed the Bench.

Quoting the law laid down in Swarn Rekha Cokes & Coals (P) Ltd. and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lafarge Dealers Association, the Court observed that laws, notifications, and administrative orders applicable to the erstwhile undivided State continue to apply to the successor States unless expressly repealed or amended.

“Quashing FIRs without indicating an alternative forum or jurisdiction is a grave error”

The Supreme Court condemned the High Court’s failure to even indicate which authority or police station would otherwise have jurisdiction over the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Calling such an omission a “travesty of justice,” the Bench remarked:

“If, on a hyper-technical ground, the FIRs are quashed, the High Court is duty-bound to lay down the law with respect to the jurisdiction that otherwise exists.”

The Court also found fault in the High Court’s dismissal of G.O.Ms. No. 137 dated 14.09.2022, which clarified that the Vijayawada ACB unit was to be treated as a police station for the purposes of Section 2(s) CrPC. The High Court had held that this G.O. had no retrospective application. The Supreme Court reversed this finding by holding:

“Clarificatory orders do not operate retrospectively because they are not meant to alter the law — they only restate what was already true. There is no defect that needs curing if there is no illegality to begin with.”

“Interpretation that creates a vacuum in anti-corruption enforcement cannot be countenanced”

The Court warned against any interpretation that hinders enforcement of the Prevention of Corruption Act, stating categorically:

“Any construction that leads to lawlessness or legal vacuum — allowing persons to engage in corruption with impunity — defeats the very object of the statute and the constitutional promise of clean governance.”

It noted that as a result of the High Court’s judgment, several corruption investigations had been stalled for years. The Court expressed concern over the real possibility of material evidence being lost or compromised.

FIRs restored, High Court barred from further interference

Setting aside the High Court’s judgment in full, the Court issued clear directions:

“The appellant(s) are at liberty to proceed with the investigation. However, no coercive steps shall be taken against the respondents during the pendency of the investigation. All final reports must be filed within six months from the date of this judgment.”

It further added that while FIRs could not be challenged again on jurisdictional grounds, the respondents are free to raise other legal contentions at the stage of the charge sheet or trial, if warranted.

The Supreme Court also made it clear that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh shall not entertain any more challenges to these FIRs on the ground of alleged lack of jurisdiction.

“The law must serve public purpose, not procedural pedantry”

In its closing remarks, the Supreme Court reiterated that the judiciary must interpret procedural requirements in a manner that furthers substantive justice, especially in matters involving serious allegations of corruption. It concluded:

“We have no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The respondents must co-operate with the investigation and the State shall ensure completion within the prescribed time.”

Date of Decision: January 8, 2026