Facts
The Petitioner, a Superintendent Engineer in the PWD, and his wife, a Child Development Project Officer, are both public servants
Source reference: p.2On 18.11.2023, Respondent No. 2 filed a "source report" alleging that the Petitioner amassed wealth 110% disproportionate to his known sources of income
Source reference: p.3, 110Based on this report, the Superintendent of Police (SP) passed an order under the second proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, authorizing an FIR and investigation
Source reference: p.3The FIR (Crime No. 03/2024) was registered on 08.01.2024
Source reference: p.3Previously, the High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that a preliminary enquiry was mandatory; however, the Supreme Court set aside that order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration on merits
Source reference: p.4-5Issues
1. Whether the Supreme Court’s remand order precludes the Petitioner from arguing the desirability of a preliminary enquiry in this specific case
Source reference: p.11 / para. 102. Whether the source report dated 18.11.2023 was sufficient to dispense with a preliminary enquiry
Source reference: p.11 / para. 103. Whether the FIR and the authorizing order under Section 17 of the PC Act are legally sustainable
Source reference: p.11-12 / para. 10Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act regarding disproportionate assets
Source reference: p.3It followed the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., which held that while an FIR is mandatory for cognizable offences, a preliminary enquiry is "permissible" and "desirable" in corruption cases to prevent harassment
Source reference: p.17, 36The court applied Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which creates a statutory safeguard for preliminary enquiries in offences punishable by 3–7 years
Source reference: p.91-95It further relied on Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., establishing that income tax returns (ITRs) of public servants are presumed true and must be scrutinized before alleging disproportionate assets
Source reference: p.102-104The Karnataka Lokayukta’s own Circular (11.05.2023) requiring "detailed" source reports and "thorough verification"
Source reference: p.83-84Reasoning
The court reasoned that while a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in every case, its desirability depends on the quality of the source report
Source reference: para. 11.2Upon examining the report, the court found it "sketchy, defective, and incomplete" because it failed to scrutinize the ITRs of the Petitioner, his wife, and daughter
Source reference: p.111-112The court noted that the respondents improperly included a property acquired via a gift deed as an illicit asset without verification
Source reference: p.112-113Applying Ashish Dave v. State of Rajasthan, the court observed that the police ignored the safeguard under Section 173(3) BNSS by registering the FIR mechanically despite vague allegations
Source reference: p.97-98Since the source report lacked foundational material and ignored the Petitioner's legitimate declarations of income, a preliminary enquiry was essential to determine if a prima facie case existed
Source reference: p.114Holding
The court answered the issues in favour of the Petitioner, holding that the Supreme Court's remand did not bar the challenge on the grounds of "desirability"
It held that the specific facts warranted a preliminary enquiry because the source report was inadequate
Source reference: p.114Consequently, the High Court quashed the FIR (Crime No. 3/2024) and the Section 17 authorization order dated 08.01.2024
Source reference: p.116The matter was remitted to the Lokayukta to conduct a proper preliminary enquiry pursuant to the source report and proceed in accordance with law thereafter
Source reference: p.117Original Court PDF
SRI N SATISH BABU,vsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in