Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash FIR in Crime No.31 of 2024 registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police against the petitioner, who was working as Deputy Controller in the Legal Metrology Department. The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and was pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. The petitioner joined service on 24.03.1997 as an Inspector and rose to the post of Deputy Controller. On 01.06.2024, a source report was generated against the petitioner by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, indicating that the assets in his possession were prima facie disproportionate to his known sources of income. The competent authority directed verification through a preliminary enquiry, which was conducted by a Police Inspector and submitted on 10.07.2024. Based on the source report and preliminary enquiry report, the competent authority recorded that the materials prima facie disclosed commission of a cognizable offence under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. Accordingly, FIR was registered on 18.07.2024 at about 2.30 p.m. A search warrant was obtained and the petitioner's residence was searched on 19.07.2024. According to the source report, the assets, expenditure and income depicted disproportionate assets to the tune of 155%. The petitioner approached the High Court contending that the source report was shoddy and the preliminary enquiry was an eyewash, failing to meet the standards laid down by the Supreme Court in Salib alias Shalu alias Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. He argued that further proceedings should be permitted only after complying with the law laid down in Salib. The prosecution opposed the petition, submitting that a preliminary enquiry was duly conducted and several glaring facts emerged. The annual property return declared 1,650 grams of gold, but the search yielded about 4 kilograms of gold, about 300 grams of diamond and about 4 kilograms of silver; the value difference was close to ₹3 crores. Cash declared was ₹15 lakhs, but ₹25 lakhs was found with no explanation. The prosecution also alleged that four apartments existed in someone else's names but rents were being received by the petitioner's daughters, and that disproportionate assets were quantified at 155%. These were matters of evidence for trial, according to the prosecution. The petitioner's senior counsel rejoined that there was an engagement ceremony in the house and the gold, jewelry and cash belonged to relatives. A coordinate bench of the High Court had earlier granted an interim order of stay on 19.03.2025, which remained in operation. The court heard submissions and reserved orders on 07.07.2026, but the extracted portion of the judgment does not record the final decision. Therefore, while the procedural and factual background is clear, the final holding on whether the FIR should be quashed is not mentioned in the available text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Preliminary Enquiry Requirement in Corruption Cases - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2) - The accused challenged FIR in Crime No.31 of 2024 on the ground that the preliminary enquiry was shoddy and an eyewash, contrary to the principles laid down in Salib alias Shalu alias Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. The court heard submissions but the final holding on this issue is not mentioned in the extracted text (Paras 1-8). B) Prevention of Corruption - Disproportionate Assets - Search Findings and Annual Property Return Discrepancies - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2) - The prosecution submitted that the preliminary enquiry and search revealed discrepancy between the annual property return and actual assets, including about 4 kg of gold against declared 1,650 grams, 300 grams of diamond, about 4 kg of silver, and cash of ₹25 lakhs against declared ₹15 lakhs; disproportionate assets were quantified at 155%. The court noted these as matters of evidence, but no final decision is recorded in the extracted text (Paras 6-8, 10-11.1). C) Criminal Procedure - Interim Relief - Stay of Investigation - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - A coordinate bench of the High Court granted interim stay of investigation on 19.03.2025, which remained in operation; no final order on the quashing petition is mentioned in the extracted text (Paras 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the preliminary enquiry conducted before registration of FIR in Crime No.31/2024 for offences under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 met the legal requirements laid down by the Supreme Court; whether the FIR is liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Final Decision
Final decision not mentioned in extracted text; the court reserved orders on 07.07.2026 and pronounced on 24.08.2026, but the available portion does not include the operative order on quashing.
Law Points
- Preliminary enquiry must be meaningful and not an eyewash before registering FIR in disproportionate assets case under Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- accused can challenge FIR under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- 2023 for non-compliance with law laid down in Salib alias Shalu alias Salim v. State of U.P. and Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.
- search findings and annual property return discrepancies are matters of evidence for trial.
