Point of Law: No prior approval from the competent authority was necessary for investigation into the offence under Section 13(1) (a) of the Act alleged against him.

ORDER :

The petitioners are officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board. They are accused of committing forgery, misappropriation of money and cheating.

2. The petitioners figure as accused 1 to 4 in the case registered as VC-02/2021/PTA by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Pathanamthitta under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and also under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The first petitioner, who is the first accused in the case, was the Administrative Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The second and the third petitioners, who are the second and the third accused in the case, were Executive Officers in the Travancore Devaswom Board at Sabarimala. The fourth petitioner, who is the fourth accused in the case, was employed as Junior Superintendent in the Travancore Devaswom Board.

4. The summary of the allegations against the petitioners, as mentioned in Annexure-A F.I.R, is as follows:

“That A1, while working as Administrative Officer, Travancore Devaswom Board, in charge of the running of Devaswom Board Mess at Nilakkal during the Mandala Makaravilakku Festival 2018-19 and as such being a public servant, with the intention to misappropriate funds entrusted to him as public servant forged bills and invoices in the name of J.P.Traders, used them as genuine and sanctioned a total amount of Rs. 59,98,029/-vide Cheque Nos. (1) 351013, (2) 441302, (3) 441543 and (4) 601430 of Dhanalakshmi Bank, got the cheques passed with the aid of A2 to A4 at various dates during the year 2018-19 and delivered one cheque bearing the No. 351013 for Rs.8,20,935/-alone to Jayaprakash B, owner of J.P.Traders who had supplied vegetables and groceries to the Devaswom Mess at Nilakkal, and encashed the remaining three cheques fraudulently and thereby misappropriated an amount of Rs.51,77,194/-, committing the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of PC Act (Amendment) 2018 and Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC”.

5. The accused have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashing the entire proceedings against them initiated on the basis of Annexure-A F.I.R.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Learned Public Prosecutor. In order to refute the contentions raised by the petitioners, the investigating officer produced the case diary for perusal of this Court. I have perused it.

7. One Jayaprakash.B, the proprietor of J.P.Traders, had supplied vegetables and groceries to the Travancore Devaswom Board. He made a complaint to the Chief Minister of Kerala raising an allegation that the first petitioner had created false bills in the name of his firm and misappropriated huge amount. This complaint forms the basis of the case initiated against the petitioners.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two contentions in support of the prayer for quashing Annexure-A F.I.R. They are : (1) Before registration of the F.I.R against the petitioners, a preliminary inquiry should have been conducted to ascertain whether the allegations raised against the petitioners in the complaint disclosed commission of any cognizable offence. No such preliminary inquiry, as contemplated in the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P : (2014) 2 SCC 1, was conducted. (2) Before registration of the F.I.R against the petitioners, prior approval from the competent authority, as provided under Section 17A of the Act, was not obtained by the investigating officer. Therefore, the registration of the case against the petitioners and the investigation conducted against them are illegal and liable to be quashed. Preliminary Inquiry – Whether Mandatory?

9. In Lalita Kumari (supra), the Supreme Court has not laid down that in all corruption cases a preliminary inquiry shall be conducted before registration of F.I.R. In fact,