ACB Cannot Close Verified Bribery Complaint in Preliminary Enquiry: Rajasthan High Court Orders FIR, Refuses CBI Probe

The petitioner, a State Bank of India officer, complained to the ACB on 15.11.2022 that senior bank officers had demanded Rs 40 lakh to drop the charges against him (para 2). Verification under preliminary complaint No. 10/2023 found the substance true, and a trap was planned (para 9). After a constable's note doubting his whereabouts and a prosecution opinion seeking a voice sample, a preliminary enquiry was registered instead of an FIR, closure was proposed and a complaint against him under Sections 182 and 211 IPC was suggested (paras 1, 10). He sought quashing and a CBI investigation; the State said the facts were found false but did not oppose a CBI probe (paras 1, 3).

Relying on State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy, which applied the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari, the Court noted that an FIR is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence; even in corruption cases, where a preliminary inquiry may be held, its scope is only to see whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, not to test the truth of the information (paras 5-6). Pradeep Nirankaranath Sharma reaffirmed that the police have no discretion to hold a preliminary inquiry where the information clearly discloses a cognizable offence (para 7). Here a preliminary complaint had been registered, verification had found the allegations true and a trap had been planned, so a preliminary inquiry had already been conducted (para 9). Instead of an FIR, a preliminary enquiry was registered and closure proposed (para 10). After verification the ACB was obliged to register an FIR and investigate; its course indicated efforts to shield the proposed accused, and the matter could not be closed on a preliminary enquiry report (para 11). As the complaint was made to and examined by the ACB, the Court left the investigation with it rather than the CBI (para 12).