Court Holds ACB's Preliminary Enquiry Insufficient to Close Case Alleging Bribe Demand by SBI Officials; Orders Fair and Impartial Investigation
In a significant judgment delivered on October 5, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) under Justice Ashok Kumar Jain quashed the closure report filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in a bribery allegation case involving senior officials of the State Bank of India (SBI). The Court directed the ACB to register a First Information Report (FIR) and conduct a thorough investigation into the complaint lodged by Vivek Sharma, the petitioner, who accused certain SBI officials of demanding a bribe.
The controversy arose after Vivek Sharma, while serving as Chief Manager at SBI's Bhiwadi branch, uncovered a fraudulent housing loan amounting to ₹51,00,000 sanctioned in 2015 to one Supratik Mitra by the then officials of the branch. Subsequently, Sharma alleged harassment and suspension based on an FIR lodged against him by the bank officials, which was later closed. Following this, he filed a complaint alleging that senior SBI officers demanded ₹40,00,000 to drop all charges against him.
The ACB conducted a preliminary enquiry (PE) and verification which prima facie substantiated the petitioner's allegations, leading to a planned trap operation. However, instead of registering an FIR against the accused officials, the ACB closed the matter based on the preliminary enquiry report, simultaneously recommending prosecuting the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly giving false information.
The petitioner challenged this closure report under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), urging the Court to quash the PE closure and direct proper investigation. The ACB defended its stance, submitting that the complaint was false and declined to register an FIR.
In its landmark ruling, the Rajasthan High Court extensively analyzed the legal position on FIR registration and preliminary enquiries, relying heavily on the Supreme Court's authoritative judgments, including the Constitution Bench decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1, and subsequent rulings in State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (2025 SCC Online SC 382) and Pradeep Nirankaranath Sharma v. State of Gujarat (2025) 4 SCC 818.
The Court reiterated that under Section 154 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 175 of BNSS), registration of an FIR is mandatory when the information received prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. It emphasized that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in such cases and, if conducted, its scope is limited to determining whether the information reveals a cognizable offence, not to test the veracity or truthfulness of the allegations. The Court highlighted that the police or investigating agency cannot shirk their duty to register an FIR once a cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed.
Further, relying on the principles from Mahabir Prasad Verma v. Dr. Surender Kaur (1982) 2 SCC 258, the Court clarified the evidentiary value of tape-recorded conversations, stating that such recordings can only be used as corroborative evidence when supported by direct testimony, and cannot stand alone as proper evidence.
Applying these legal principles to the facts, the Court found the ACB's actions in closing the case without registering an FIR and instead targeting the complainant to be inappropriate and an attempt to shield the accused SBI officials. It was noted that the preliminary enquiry and trap operation conducted by the ACB had sufficiently established a prima facie case.
Therefore, the Court set aside and quashed the findings of the preliminary enquiry and the recommendation to prosecute the complainant. It directed the ACB to register an FIR under Section 175 of BNSS (corresponding to cognizable offences) and conduct a fair, free, and impartial investigation into the bribery allegations.
The Court declined to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), observing that since the complaint was made to ACB and they had already initiated some enquiry, it was appropriate for ACB to conduct the investigation under strict judicial scrutiny.
This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of FIR registration upon receipt of information disclosing cognizable offences, especially in corruption cases, and underscores the limited scope of preliminary enquiries. It sends a strong message against attempts to suppress genuine complaints through closure reports without proper investigation.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Where complaint and verification prima facie disclose demand of bribe and even trap was planned, ACB cannot close matter on basis of preliminary enquiry without registering FIR - Scope of preliminary inquiry is limited to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed and not to test truthfulness - Closure report in PE quashed and ACB directed to register FIR and conduct fair investigation.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 175, 528; Indian Penal Code Sections 182, 211; Prevention of Corruption Act; Indian Evidence Act Section 7; Criminal Procedure Code Section 154 (corresponding to BNSS Section 175)
Vivek Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (Raj)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000424
