There is no mandatory requirement to conduct a preliminary inquiry or to grant a public servant an opportunity to explain alleged disproportionate assets prior to the registration of an FIR for criminal misconduct, as the investigating officer’s role is limited to evidence collection, not adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA-I appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3.

2. Under challenge is the First Information Report dated 17.12.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0028 of 2025 under Sections 13 (1) (b) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (In short "Act, 1988") at Police Station- Lucknow Sector (Vigilance Commission), Lucknow, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the allegations as levelled in the impugned First Information Report which has been lodged under the provisions of Sections 13 (1) (b) and 13 (2) of the Act, 1988 would indicate that in an open inquiry, it has emerged that the petitioner has been found to have spent an amount of Rs. 2.51 Crores & odd instead of his earning from all legal and valid sources which amounted to Rs. 1.95 Crores & odd i.e the petitioner has been found to have spent Rs. 55,00,000/- and odd in excess which conduct of his falls within the ambit of Section 13 (1) (b) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act, 1988. This has emerged on the basis of open inquiry report no. ANU-2-KHULI-86/2020 which inquiry was conducted on the basis of the confidential Demi Official letter dated 12.06.2020. It has also been indicated that by means of letter dated 04.12.2025, the case of the petitioner has been forwarded to Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Department for the purpose of investigation.

4. Contention is that the aforesaid allegations as levelled in the impugned First Information Report are patently false.

5. Elaborating the same, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner along with others had filed a Writ Petition No. 20001 (SS) of 2020 Inre; Jaikar Singh and ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors. in which the petitioner was petitioner no. 6. In the said petition, the petitioners had challenged the orders dated 12.06.2020 and 22.07.2020 whereby directions had been issued to initiate vigilance inquiry against the petitioners. Before the writ Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State had submitted that the petitioners are challenging the regular open vigilance inquiry. However, the writ Court was of the view that prima facie it is apparent that only a fact finding inquiry has been initiated as has also been submitted by the learned State counsel against the petitioner and regular vigilance inquiry as contemplated under the Rules of 1977 has not yet commenced.

6. Considering the aforesaid the writ Court was of the view that as the inquiry is only a fact finding inquiry, the respondents in the meantime were restrained from requiring the petitioners to furnish any information pertaining to their assets . It was also indicated that the fact finding inquiry against the petitioners may continue. Copy of the interim order dated 20.12.2021 has been filed as annexure 13 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states at bar that the aforesaid order passed by the writ Court dated 20.12.2021 is still continuing as of date although the respondents have filed an application for vacation of the interim order.

7. Placing reliance on the compliance affidavit dated 09.07.2025 and the inquiry report dated 19.02.2024 which had been in the aforesaid petition and are being instant petition, contention is that the respondents in the said inquiry have categorically recorded that while holding the open inquiry against the petitioner, no explanation