Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Under PC Act: Supreme Court Upholds Lokayukta's Power

“Superintendent of Police Can Register FIR and Authorise Investigation Simultaneously – No Breach of Section 17 of PC Act”, In a significant reaffirmation of settled law governing corruption investigations, the Supreme Court of India allowed the State's appeal and set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order that had quashed FIRs registered against a government officer by the Lokayukta Police under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for alleged disproportionate assets.

The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta emphatically held:

“Preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Where source information is detailed and well-reasoned, and discloses prima facie commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR may be registered directly.”

The Court further affirmed that Section 17 of the PC Act, which limits the power of investigation to officers not below the rank of DSP, does not fetter the Superintendent of Police from directing registration of an FIR or from authorising investigation by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, provided the statutory framework is respected.

“High Court's Quashing of FIRs Was Contrary to Law Declared in T.N. Sudhakar Reddy Case”

The present appeal arose from a writ petition filed by the respondent Pradeep, before the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench), challenging FIRs registered against him for offences under Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2), and 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The respondent contended that:

1. No preliminary inquiry was conducted prior to registration of the FIR.
2. The Superintendent of Police had no authority to authorise a Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct the investigation under Section 17 of the PC Act.

Accepting these arguments, the High Court quashed the FIRs on jurisdictional grounds. However, the Supreme Court, relying on its recent precedent in State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy, categorically held:

“The High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the Superintendent of Police was in violation of Section 17 of the PC Act. Section 17 limits investigation, not registration of FIR. The SP is competent to direct registration and authorise DSP for investigation.”

Quoting paragraph 51 of the T.N. Sudhakar Reddy judgment, the Court reiterated that:

“On a harmonious reading of the PC Act and CrPC, it is manifest that the Superintendent of Police is competent to direct the registration of an FIR and simultaneously authorise the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate.”

“Respondent Entitled to Challenge Chargesheets Filed During Pendency – Matter Remanded for Merits-Based Adjudication”

The Court accepted the respondent’s plea that while the High Court had allowed the writ petition on jurisdictional grounds, other substantive grounds touching the merits – including lack of foundational material for allegations of disproportionate assets – were not adjudicated.

Accordingly, the Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, but confined the scope of remand to grounds raised but not earlier decided.

“The respondent was deprived of adjudication of other grounds raised in the writ petition(s), which has left him remediless. The matter is remitted for fresh adjudication on merits limited to those untouched grounds.”

The Court further clarified that during the pendency of the appeal, chargesheets had been filed in the matter. Thus, the respondent is granted liberty to challenge the chargesheets in the revived writ petitions, but only to the extent they were filed during the pendency of this appeal.

“This liberty is limited to assailing chargesheets filed during pendency of this appeal. The scope of the writ petitions cannot be expanded beyond that.”

“No Coercive Steps Till Disposal by High Court – Interim Protection to Continue”

Considering the interim protection granted to the respondent during the pendency of the writ proceedings, the Court directed:

“No coercive steps shall be taken against the respondent till disposal of the writ petition(s) by the High Court.”

The Bench also requested the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru to take up and dispose of the restored writ petitions expeditiously.

FIR Registration Need Not Be Delayed by Preliminary Inquiry Where Credible Information Exists

This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s position that investigation into corruption cases—especially those involving disproportionate assets—cannot be stifled by overly technical procedural objections. The absence of a preliminary inquiry or the delegation of investigation to a competent officer does not render the FIR or probe void where statutory safeguards are respected.

The Court has struck a careful balance: while affirming the legality of the FIRs and investigation process, it has also ensured that the respondent’s substantive legal challenges are not left unheard.

The ruling is expected to impact anti-corruption investigations across States, especially in Karnataka where the Lokayukta Police routinely faces procedural challenges to its probes.

Date of Decision: 9 January 2026