Karnataka HC Quashes Lokayukta DA FIR Against BBMP Engineer, Remits Case For Fresh Orders

The petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer with BBMP, challenged a source information report dated 15 January 2025, the FIR registered against him on 30 January 2025 for offences under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the authorization order under Section 17 of that Act, and the ensuing investigation.

Searches of his residence and office followed registration of the FIR.

He argued that no preliminary enquiry had been conducted and that the disproportionate-assets calculation was unreliable; the Lokayukta responded that the investigation was at an early stage and the disputed calculations could be addressed during investigation or trial.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was invoked as the basis for the petition; the challenged offences arose under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2), and the investigation authorization under Section 17, of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Relying on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, State of Telangana v. Managipet, CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy and State of Karnataka v. Channakeshava H.D., the Court treated preliminary enquiry as not mandatory in every corruption case, but its desirability as dependent on the facts and the material available; a sufficiently detailed and reasoned source report disclosing a cognizable offence may obviate the need for one.

The Court also relied on Karnataka Lokayukta’s circular of 11 May 2023, which requires a detailed source report and prescribed scrutiny in disproportionate-assets cases.

The Court also referred to Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh concerning consideration of income-tax returns and a non-mechanical assessment of assets and income.

The Court held that although preliminary enquiry is not an invariable prerequisite, whether it should be conducted depends on the adequacy of the material and the circumstances of the particular case.

It found that the source report discussed in its merits analysis was incomplete and insufficiently scrutinized, including in relation to income-tax returns and assets attributed to family members; it therefore considered a preliminary enquiry necessary before further proceedings.

However, the judgment’s merits analysis reproduces and assesses a source report concerning N. Satish Babu, a different public servant, and refers to his 2023 FIR, rather than identifying or analysing Madhavrao’s 2025 source report in comparable detail.

The stated basis for applying that analysis to Madhavrao is that the coordinate Bench’s decision in N. Satish Babu was on similar lines.

The FIR in Crime No. 9 of 2025 was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Karnataka Lokayukta to pass necessary orders from the stage at which the identified defect arose, having regard to the Court’s observations.

The operative order did not separately specify the disposition of each challenged document, including the source information report.