FIR registration and limited preliminary inquiry in corruption cases govern quashing when procedural lapses do not defeat prima facie prosecution.

FIR registration is mandatory where information discloses a cognizable offence, but a limited preliminary inquiry may be permissible in corruption matters to determine whether such offence is disclosed. A two- to three-day delay in lodging the FIR was not treated as inordinate or deliberate, given the allegations of large-scale corruption and the secrecy required in trap-related action. Although the pre-FIR search and arrest were irregular, the Court noted that the material collected, the later charge-sheet, and prima facie evidence disclosed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and allied provisions. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, and legitimate prosecution should not be stifled for procedural lapses at the preliminary stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed on the grounds that the investigation and search were undertaken before registration of the FIR, there was delay in lodging the FIR, and the case fell within the category warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence, but in corruption matters a limited preliminary inquiry is permissible to ascertain whether such offence is disclosed. The delay of two to three days in the present case was treated as neither inordinate nor deliberate, having regard to the nature of the allegations of large-scale corruption and the need for secrecy in trap-related anti-corruption action. Though the pre-FIR arrest and search were noted to be irregular, the Court found that the material collected, the subsequent charge-sheet, and the prima facie evidence disclosed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and allied provisions. The Court also held that the principles governing quashing under Section 482 require sparing exercise of inherent powers and that a legitimate prosecution should not be stifled merely because some procedural lapses occurred during the preliminary stage.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on these grounds and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---