DR.DHANANJAYA Y.CHANDRACHUD,J. - (1.) This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are: A The Appeal B Factual and procedural history C Counsel 's submissions D Whether a Preliminary Inquiry is mandatory before registering an FIR D.1 Precedents of this Court D.2 CBI Manual D.3 Analysis E Whether the FIR should be quashed E.1 Scope of review before the High Court E.2 Whether the FIR is liable to be quashed in the present case F Conclusion A The Appeal 1. The appeal arises from a judgment dated 11 February 2020 of a Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana, by which: (i) a writ petition (Writ Petition No 8552 of 2018) filed by the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was allowed; and (ii) the First Information Report ( "FIR ") dated 20 September 2017 registered against the respondents was set aside, together with proceedings taken up pursuant to the FIR.
(2.) The first respondent is a Commissioner of Income Tax while the second respondent is her spouse. The second respondent is a Member of the Legislative Assembly ( "MLA ") and is a Minister in the State government of Andhra Pradesh. The FIR (FIR No RC MAl 2017 A 0021) dated 20 September 2017 has been registered against the first respondent for being in possession (allegedly) of assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. The second respondent is alleged to have abetted the offence. The FIR has thus been registered for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ( "PC Act ") and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ( "IPC "). The allegation is of possession of Disproportionate Assets to the tune of Rs 1,10,81,692, which was 22.86 per cent of the income earned during the check period between 1 April 2010 to 29 February 2016.
(3.) While quashing the FIR, the High Court held that: (i) the information about the respondents ' income can be ascertained from their 'known sources of income ' under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, such as their Income Tax Returns, information submitted to their department under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 ( "CCS Rules ") and affidavit filed under the Representation of the People Act 1951 ( "RP Act ") and the Rules under it; (ii) to counter the veracity of the information from these sources, the appellant, Central Bureau of Investigation ( "CBI "), should have conducted a Preliminary Enquiry under the Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime) Manual 2005 ( "CBI Manual ") before registration of the FIR; and (iii) on the basis of the information ascertained from these 'known sources of income ', the allegations against the respondents in the FIR prima facie seem unsustainable. This view of the High Court has been called into question in these proceedings. B Factual and procedural history ;