A corruption FIR cannot bypass preliminary inquiry absent recorded satisfaction that the source material is sufficient.

The petitioner, a retired District Child Protection Officer, challenged the FIR registered in Crime No. 10/2020 for an alleged offence under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The FIR followed a source report and an order under Section 17(c) of the Act; admittedly, no separate preliminary inquiry was conducted before registration.

The source report stated that statutory deductions and certain investments and valuables had not been accounted for, while alleging disproportionate income of 51.35%.

The petitioner argued that accounting for a loan of Rs. 97 lakh would remove the alleged excess.

The Lokayukta relied on Supreme Court authority that a preliminary inquiry is not invariably mandatory.

1. Whether a preliminary inquiry was mandatory before registering the FIR in the circumstances of this case

2. Whether the source report and the Section 17(c) order disclosed a sufficient prima facie basis to register the FIR without a preliminary inquiry

Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended, concerns a public servant’s intentional illicit enrichment.

Section 17(c) was the statutory basis invoked for the police authorisation to proceed.

Relying on Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., State of Telangana v. Managipet and Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, as discussed in State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakara Reddy, the Court noted that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every corruption case where the available information discloses a cognizable offence; its necessity depends on the circumstances.

A corruption FIR cannot bypass preliminary inquiry absent recorded satisfaction that the source material is sufficient.