IMPORTANT POINT
The court confirmed that prior approval for investigating public servants is not required if they are arrested on the spot for accepting bribes, ensuring effective enforcement of anti-corruption laws.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed underSection 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’ for short), to quash Annexure A2 FIR No.7/2023/KLM of the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau, Kollam Unit, now pending on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapruam. The petitioner herein is the 2^nd accused in the above case.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner/ 2^nd accused and the Special learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant records.

3. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant, who is a licensed document writer, when presented three sale deeds on 12.06.2023 before the Sub Registrar, Kundara, for registration, as part of conspiracy hatched between the 1^st accused, who is the peon of the office and the 2^nd accused, the Sub Registrar, the 1^st accused demanded Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred only) as bribe, i.e., at the rate of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) for one document, for registering the above documents. When the complainant informed the 1^st accused that he did not have the money, the 1^st accused informed him that two sale deeds would only be registered on 12.06.2023 and registration of the third one would be done on 13.06.2023 (tomorrow), for which Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) had to be entrusted to him. The further case of the prosecution is that, pursuant to the said demand, on 13.06.2023, the complainant met the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP), VACB, Kollam, and pre-trap proceedings initiated. Thereafter, after applying phenolphthalein powder in 8 notes for the value of Rs.500/-, the complainant reached the office at 4.50 pm and the Dy.SP waited outside. Then the complainant along with Vinod Kumar entered inside the Sub Registrar Office and saluted Smt.Reena, the Sub Registrar Officer. Then Reena instructed him to go to the record room behind her seat, by gesturing with her right hand. When he hesitated to enter into the record room, Suresh (A1) called him inside, and he entered therein. Then Suresh said that the amount should not to be reduced and showed his right hand. Soon the complainant handed over the bribe money, which was kept in his pocket, to Suresh, and Suresh opened the same by using both his hands and placed inside a file board. Vinod witnessed the same. Thereafter, the 1^st accused was arrested at 5.25 pm and as per the prosecution case, after recording the arrest of the 1^st accused and after completing the formalities of trap, the second accused was also arrested at 7.15 pm from the office itself. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act, 2018’ for short) as well as under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by accused Nos.1 and 2.

4. In this matter, earlier the petitioner/2^nd accused filed a petition seeking quashment of the same FIR vide Crl.M.C.No.1944/2024 and the same was later dismissed as withdrawn on recording the submission made by the then counsel seeking permission to withdraw the same. Annexure A2 is the order therein.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner canvassed quashment of the FIR mainly urging that enquiry or inquiry or investigation as against the petitioner is specifically barred under Section 17A of PC Act, 2018. He also pointed out that as per the 1^st proviso to Section 17A of the PC Act, 2018, the only exemption to avoid prior approval manda