Preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before FIR registration under the Prevention of Corruption Act; a prima facie case allows for investigation without prior inquiry.

ORDER

Accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the FIR in Crime No.4/2024 registered by respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (b) R/w Section 13 (2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act . 1988, (for short, 'P.C.Act'), pending before the Court of XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Facts leading to filing of this writ petition as revealed from the records narrated briefly are, petitioner No.1 was appointed on compassionate ground as Secretary Grade-II on 26.03.2002 and in the year 2007 he was promoted as Secretary Grade-I. In the year 2011, he was promoted to the post of Panchayat Development Officer and during the year 2023 when he was working as a Panchayat Development Officer at Kundana Grama Panchayat, Devanahalli taluk, he was suspected of acquiring assets disproportionate to his known source of income, and therefore, the Police Inspector attached to Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru Urban Division had held preliminary enquiry and thereafter submitted a source report on 22.12.2023. On the basis of the said report, the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta Bengaluru urban division had directed respondent no.1 herein to register FIR against accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(b) R/w Section 13 (2) and Section 12 of the P.C Act. Based on the order passed by the Superintendent of Police in exercise of his power under Section 17 and 18 of the P.C. Act, respondent no.1 had registered FIR in crime No.4/2024 against the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent no.1 after obtaining search warrant had conducted search on various properties which stood in the name of petitioner no.1 and also on the properties allegedly purchased by petitioner no.1 in the name of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are his wife and mother-in-law, respectively. It is at this stage the petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the impugned proceedings in Crime No.4/2024.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits the allegation against petitioner no.1 is that he has acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income and therefore preliminary enquiry was required before registering FIR. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofLALITA KUMARI V. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS- (2014) 2 SCC 1 and CHARANSINGH V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - (2021) 5 SCC 469. He has also placed reliance on the orders passed by the Co- ordinate Benches of this Court in the following cases:-

1. NAVNEETH MOHAN N V. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER AND ANOTHER (WRIPT PETITION NO. 43817/2018) DECIDED ON 21.04.2021.

2. BALAKRISHNA H.N. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (WRIT PETITION NO.15886/2022) DECIDED ON 03.01.2023.

3. J. GNANENDRA KUMAR V. CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER (WRIT PETITION NO.8170/2022) DECIDED ON 20.07.2022

4. K.L. GANGADHARAIAH V. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE (WRIT PETITION NO.11822/2023) DECIDED ON 28.07.2023.

5. SRI T.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (WRIT PETITION NO.13460/2023) DECIDED ON 04.03.2024.

5. He submits that the Superintendent of Police without application of mind has passed order under Section 17 of the P.C. Act, which is not permissible. He submits that the Superintendent of Police has authorised respondent no.1 only to reg