Preliminary enquiry and reliable asset computation are crucial before pursuing disproportionate assets corruption allegations.

In corruption investigations against a public servant, the absence of a preliminary enquiry before registration of the FIR may weigh against the validity of the case, especially where the police proceed only on source information without verifying disclosed income, returns, declarations, and related records. The article also notes that an FIR alleging disproportionate assets must disclose reliable prima facie material; material arithmetical and valuation errors, such as overstated assets, understated income, and duplicate inclusion of the same property item, can undermine the foundation of the prosecution. On that reasoning, continuation of the proceedings was treated as an abuse of process and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the absence of a preliminary enquiry before registration of the first information report in a corruption case vitiated the proceedings; (ii) whether the first information report disclosed a prima facie case of possession of disproportionate assets warranting continuation of the investigation.

Issue (i): whether the absence of a preliminary enquiry before registration of the first information report in a corruption case vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: The allegations concerned criminal misconduct by a public servant under the corruption statute, where the Court applied the settled principle that a preliminary enquiry is ordinarily advisable to prevent frivolous or untenable criminal action. The Court found that the respondents had proceeded only on source information without first verifying the petitioners' disclosed income, returns, declarations, and related documents. It also found that the material on record showed no preliminary enquiry had been undertaken before registration of the case, contrary to the expected procedure in such matters.

Conclusion: The absence of a preliminary enquiry weighed against the validity of the first information report and favoured the petitioners.

Issue (ii): whether the first information report disclosed a prima facie case of possession of disproportionate assets warranting continuation of the investigation.

Analysis: The Court examined the figures in the first information report against the disclosed income and asset statements and found material arithmetical and valuation errors, including overstatement of assets, understatement of income, inclusion of an already sold property, and separate inclusion of an elevator already embedded in the construction valuation. Applying the principles governing interference under extraordinary writ and inherent jurisdiction, the Court held that the impugned report did not disclose reliable prima facie material to support the alleged disproportionate assets and that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The first information report was held unsustainable on its face and the finding was in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The criminal case and all consequential proceedings were terminated, with ancillary relief granted for release of seized assets and frozen bank accounts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a corruption case against a public servant is registered without the expected preliminary verification and the foundational computation itself is shown to be materially unreliable on the face of the record, the first information report can be quashed as an abuse of process under extraordinary writ and inherent jurisdiction.

---