https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309150 Where a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, FIR registration is mandatory under Section 154(1) CrPC, and a limited preliminary inquiry in a corruption matter is permissible only to verify whether such an offence is disclosed. The Karnataka HC treated the pre-registration use of a spy camera as discreet verification, not an impermissible investigation, because the written complaint and supporting materials already disclosed a cognizable offence. It also noted that alleged investigative irregularities and the availability of an alternate remedy before the trial court did not justify quashing the FIR in inherent jurisdiction. The request to quash was therefore rejected. en-us Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jun 2026 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309150 Where a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, FIR registration is mandatory under Section 154(1) CrPC, and a limited preliminary inquiry in a corruption matter is permissible only to verify whether such an offence is disclosed. The Karnataka HC treated the pre-registration use of a spy camera as discreet verification, not an impermissible investigation, because the written complaint and supporting materials already disclosed a cognizable offence. It also noted that alleged investigative irregularities and the availability of an alternate remedy before the trial court did not justify quashing the FIR in inherent jurisdiction. The request to quash was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309150