Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 471
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.________________ OF 2025
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.16212 OF 2024
STATE OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
SRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
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 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).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.08
17:43:21 IST
Reason:
3. In the year 1998, respondent no.1 was appointed as an
Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission
Page 1 of 11
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,—
Page 2 of 11
(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 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
Page 3 of 11
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 State
, v.
of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595 had observed that “before a
Page 4 of 11
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
Page 5 of 11
(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, 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,
Page 6 of 11
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.’
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.”
Page 7 of 11
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. 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
Page 8 of 11
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.
Page 9 of 11
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
Page 10 of 11
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.
…...……………………………J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
.....……………………………J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 8, 2025.
Page 11 of 11
2025 INSC 471
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.________________ OF 2025
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.16212 OF 2024
STATE OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
SRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
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 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).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.08
17:43:21 IST
Reason:
3. In the year 1998, respondent no.1 was appointed as an
Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission
Page 1 of 11
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,—
Page 2 of 11
(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 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
Page 3 of 11
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 State
, v.
of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595 had observed that “before a
Page 4 of 11
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
Page 5 of 11
(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, 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,
Page 6 of 11
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.’
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.”
Page 7 of 11
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. 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
Page 8 of 11
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.
Page 9 of 11
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
Page 10 of 11
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.
…...……………………………J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
.....……………………………J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 8, 2025.
Page 11 of 11