The court established that a non-public servant can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on allegations of extorting government officials, with no mandatory requirement for a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR.

CAV ORDER

In this petition, petitioner–sole accused seeks quashing of the impugned FIR registered in Crime No.28/2025 by the Respondent-Lokayukta against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Section 7 (a) & 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’) and for other reliefs.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the petition are as under:

On 30.05.2025, the Superintendent of Police (Co-ordination and Training), Lokayukta lodged a complaint with the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Lokayukta, requesting investigation and taking of suitable action against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Section 7 (a) & 7A of the P.C Act. The ADGP, Lokayukta referred the said complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, who directed the Police Inspector, Lokayukta, to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. Accordingly, the said Police Inspector submitted a report to the S.P, Lokayukta, who directed the Dy.S.P, Lokayukta, to receive the complaint/report and register an FIR, pursuant to which, the Dy.S.P registered the impugned FIR in Crime No. 28/2025 against petitioner – sole accused for alleged offences punishable under Section 7 (a) & 7A of the P.C Act. Aggrieved by the impugned FIR, petitioner-accused is before this Court by way of the present petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Lokayuktha and perused the material on record.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned complaint dated 30.05.2025 in order to contend that the petitioner who was undisputedly not public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the P.C Act cannot be incriminated for alleged offences punishable under Section 7 (a) of the P.C.Act, which applies to only public servants and not to the petitioner. It was submitted that neither the complaint dated 30.05.2025 nor the report dated 02.06.2025 discloses or makes out commission of the alleged offences under Section 7 A of the P.C.Act by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the mandatory preliminary enquiry was not conducted by the respondent prior to registration of the impugned FIR, which is vitiated and deserves to be quashed.

4.1 Learned counsel further submitted that even the report dated 02.06.2025 was not merely a preliminary inquiry report but a detailed investigation report prior to registration of the FIR which is impermissible in law. It was therefore submitted that the impugned FIR is contrary to facts and law and the provisions contained in Section 7 (a) and 7A of the P.C Act and the same deserves to be quashed. In support of his submissions learned counsel would place reliance upon the following judgments:–

(i) H.N. Rishbud v. State by Delhi Admn – (1954)2 SCC 934;

(ii) Lalitha Kumari v. State of UP - (2014) 2 SCC 1 ;

(iii) Kulandaisamy v. State – Crl.A No.1224/2025 dated 07.03.2025;

(iv) Ashwini v. Karnataka Lokayukta - Crl.P No.8884/2024 dated 02.06.2025;

(v) Shivraj v. State – Crl.P.No.7568/2024 dated 02.06.2025 ;

(vi) Usha v. State by Lokayukta – W.P No.26705/2024 dated 02.06.2025;

(vii) State v. Jitender Kumar Singh - (2014)11 SCC 724.

5. Per Contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondent- Lokayuktha would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that the complaint clearly makes out and discloses prima facie commission of the offence punishable under Section 7A of the P.C.Act by the petitio