Key Points from the Judgment

• Maintainability of Private Complaints: Private complaints under CrPC Section 200 seeking investigation under Section 156(3) against public servants for corruption offenses are not maintainable without first approaching the jurisdictional police (or Lokayukta police wing) under CrPC Section 154(1), and if refused, the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3). The complaint must explicitly aver compliance with these steps and attach documentary proof. (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Requirement of Affidavit: Private complaints invoking CrPC Section 156(3) must be supported by an affidavit sworn by the complainant attesting to the contents, to ensure responsibility and deter frivolous or vexatious filings. Absence of such an affidavit renders the complaint non-entertainable. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Mandatory Prior Approval under PC Act Section 17A: No enquiry, inquiry, or investigation into PC Act offenses alleged against public servants (relatable to their official functions/decisions) can proceed without prior approval from the competent authority (e.g., State Government for state employees). This applies even to private complaints filed under CrPC Section 200 that are referred for investigation under Section 156(3). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Applicability of Section 17A to Private Complaints: The safeguards of PC Act Section 17A cannot be bypassed by filing private complaints directly before a Magistrate or Sessions Judge instead of the police/Lokayukta. Courts must not refer such complaints for investigation without prior approval under Section 17A (unless involving on-spot arrest for undue advantage or disproportionate assets cases). (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Procedural Directions to Sessions Judges/Special Courts: For private complaints alleging PC Act offenses (alone or combined with IPC offenses) against public servants:

• Must include proof of prior attempt to register with Lokayukta police (with documents).
• Must append prior approval under PC Act Section 17A.

• Must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit under the Oaths Act (not merely verifying). Non-compliance justifies quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of process. (!) (!) (!)

• Facts of the Case: RTI activist filed private complaint against public servants (including petitioner as Accused No.1) and suppliers alleging corruption (IPC Sections 403, 409, 120B; PC Act Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2)) based on RTI documents. Sessions Judge referred it under CrPC Section 156(3) to Anti-Corruption Bureau without affidavit, Section 154 compliance, or Section 17A approval, leading to Crime No.8/2021 (stayed by High Court). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Court's Findings and Decision: Complaint non-maintainable due to lack of affidavit, no prior police approach under Section 154, and absence of Section 17A approval. Sessions Judge erred in referring for investigation. Petition allowed; order quashed, proceedings against petitioner dismissed. Directions circulated to all Sessions Judges for compliance. (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Purpose of Safeguards: These requirements (affidavit, Section 154 compliance, Section 17A approval) protect public servants from malicious/vexatious litigation while allowing legitimate cases to proceed, ensuring judicial scrutiny before investigation. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)