Case at a Glance
A State Bank of India officer complained to the Rajasthan Anti Corruption Bureau that senior bank officials had demanded ₹40 lakh to drop charges against him. The ACB registered only a preliminary enquiry, dropped the matter and proposed action against the complainant himself for a false complaint. Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2013) 11 SC CK 0065, the Rajasthan High Court held that once verification discloses a cognizable offence an FIR must be registered, that a corruption complaint cannot be closed on a preliminary enquiry report, and that the record suggested an effort to shield the proposed accused. It quashed the enquiry findings and the recommendation to prosecute the complainant and directed the ACB to register an FIR and investigate fairly, while declining to transfer the case to the CBI.
The petitioner, Vivek Sharma, was a Chief Manager at SBI’s Bhiwadi branch. According to him, he detected a fake housing loan of ₹51 lakh and was later himself named in FIR No. 524/2020 (dated 9 September 2020) lodged at the instance of senior officials; he was suspended, and the suspension was revoked only after the police filed a closure report. He alleged that senior bank officers demanded ₹40 lakh to drop the charges, and complained to the CVC, the CVO and the SBI Chairman, and on 15 November 2022 to the ACB.
The ACB registered Preliminary Enquiry No. 10/2023. The petitioner said verification confirmed his complaint and a trap was planned, but the ACB then cited a voice mismatch, dropped the matter and proposed a complaint against him under Sections 182/211 IPC; Closure Report No. 236 dated 1 August 2023 followed. He sought quashing of the closure and a probe by the CBI or another specialised agency. The Public Prosecutor said the ACB had found the allegations false, and had no objection to a CBI probe.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the Anti Corruption Bureau close a corruption complaint on the basis of a preliminary enquiry, instead of registering an FIR, when verification has disclosed a cognizable offence?
Preliminary enquiry is not a trial of the complaint
Justice Ashok Kumar Jain relied on Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. to hold that registration of an FIR is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence, and that a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory even in corruption cases. Any enquiry is limited to checking whether a cognizable offence is disclosed — not to verifying whether the allegations are true. The Court also referred to State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 12 SC CK 0024, State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy and Pradeep Nirankaranath Sharma v. State of Gujarat on the limited scope of a preliminary enquiry, and to Mahabir Prasad Verma v. Dr. Surender Kaur, (1982) 04 SC CK 0003 on the limited evidentiary value of tape-recorded conversations.
Applying these principles, the Court found that after verification the ACB should have registered an FIR rather than a preliminary enquiry, and that the record suggested an effort to shield the proposed accused. A corruption complaint, it held, cannot be closed on the strength of a preliminary enquiry report. The Court nonetheless declined to transfer the matter to the CBI: the complaint had been made to the ACB, the enquiry was conducted by the ACB, and a proper FIR followed by a fair investigation would meet the ends of justice.
What the Court Actually Held
- Where verification discloses a cognizable offence, the ACB must register an FIR; a preliminary enquiry cannot be used to test the truth of the allegations and close the matter.
- The findings of PE No. 10/2023 dated 24 February 2023, and the recommendation to prosecute the complainant under Sections 182/211 IPC, were set aside.
- The ACB was directed to register an FIR and conduct a full, free, fair and impartial investigation into the complainant’s allegations and report to the competent court.
- The prayer for transfer to the CBI was declined; the observations are not to prejudice any party, including the proposed accused.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reinforces Lalita Kumari: investigating agencies cannot sit in judgment over a complaint at the preliminary stage.
- It protects whistle-blowers from being turned into accused through a recommendation for false-complaint prosecution after a truncated enquiry.
- It shows that a court can order a fair probe by the same agency instead of transferring it to the CBI.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Complainants
- If an anti-corruption agency closes your complaint after a preliminary enquiry, you can challenge it before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS.
- Keep records of complaints to vigilance officers and the agency, and of any verification or trap steps.
- A transfer to the CBI is not automatic; courts may prefer directing a fair investigation by the original agency.
For Counsel
- Distinguish between verifying whether a cognizable offence is disclosed and verifying truth; only the former is permissible at the enquiry stage.
- Challenge any recommendation to prosecute the complainant under Sections 182/211 IPC along with the closure.
- Rely on Lalita Kumari and Pradeep Nirankaranath Sharma on the narrow scope of preliminary enquiry.
Key Takeaways
- An FIR must follow once verification discloses a cognizable offence.
- A corruption complaint cannot be closed on a preliminary enquiry report.
- The enquiry findings and the move to prosecute the complainant were quashed.
- The ACB must register an FIR and investigate; CBI transfer was refused.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a preliminary enquiry compulsory before an FIR in corruption cases?
The Court, relying on Lalita Kumari, held that a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory even in corruption cases, and that any enquiry is limited to seeing whether a cognizable offence is disclosed.
Did the High Court find the SBI officials guilty?
No. The Court only directed registration of an FIR and a fair investigation, and said nothing in its order should prejudice any party, including the proposed accused.
Why was the case not given to the CBI?
The Court reasoned that the complaint was made to the ACB and the enquiry was conducted by it, so a proper FIR and fair investigation by the ACB would serve justice.
Conclusion
The order is a sharp reminder that an anti-corruption agency’s job at the threshold is to register and investigate, not to decide. Where an agency drops a complaint and turns on the complainant, the Rajasthan High Court has shown it will step in and insist on an FIR.
Practical takeaway: A complainant whose corruption complaint is closed after a preliminary enquiry should challenge both the closure and any proposed false-complaint action, citing Lalita Kumari.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com