Preliminary inquiry not mandatory before corruption FIRs when cognizable offence is disclosed; quashing court cannot conduct a mini-trial.

In corruption cases against public servants, including disproportionate assets matters, an FIR may be registered without a preliminary inquiry where the information itself discloses a cognizable offence; such inquiry is not a universal precondition and does not create a vested right in the accused. At the quashing stage, the Court must only see whether the FIR discloses an offence on its face and cannot conduct a mini-trial or resolve disputed factual questions by weighing rival documents. The SC held that the High Court exceeded this limited jurisdiction and set aside the quashing order, permitting the investigation to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Preliminary Enquiry is mandatory before registration of an FIR in corruption cases against public servants, including disproportionate assets cases; (ii) Whether the FIR could be quashed on the material relied upon by the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether a Preliminary Enquiry is mandatory before registration of an FIR in corruption cases against public servants, including disproportionate assets cases

Analysis: The governing principle is that registration of an FIR is mandatory when the information discloses a cognizable offence, and a preliminary inquiry is not required as a rule. The CBI Manual contemplates verification and preliminary inquiry only where the information, after verification, is not sufficient to justify a regular case. In corruption matters, a preliminary inquiry may be appropriate in a given case, but it does not create a vested right in the accused and is not a precondition for every FIR. In disproportionate assets cases, the investigating officer may proceed directly where the material already discloses a cognizable offence.

Conclusion: A Preliminary Enquiry is not mandatory before registration of an FIR in every corruption or disproportionate assets case.

Issue (ii): Whether the FIR could be quashed on the material relied upon by the High Court

Analysis: At the stage of quashing, the Court is only to see whether the FIR, on its face, discloses a cognizable offence. It cannot conduct a mini-trial, weigh the truthfulness of documents, or undertake a comparative accounting exercise to determine whether the accused can ultimately explain the assets. The High Court went beyond this limited jurisdiction by treating the respondents' documents as conclusive, reworking the figures in the FIR, and effectively adjudicating disputed questions of fact reserved for investigation and trial. The only admitted infirmity in the FIR was the separate inclusion of the elevator value, which was insufficient to dislodge the foundational allegation of disproportionate assets.

Conclusion: The FIR was not liable to be quashed on the materials before the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's order quashing the FIR was set aside, and the investigation was permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: In corruption cases, an FIR may be registered without a preliminary inquiry if the information discloses a cognizable offence, and at the quashing stage the Court cannot assess the sufficiency or truth of disputed materials by conducting a mini-trial.

---