Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
M.R. Ajith Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case details and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural steps taken by the court regarding the complaints. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. summary of the formal complaints and allegations. (Para 6 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. examination of legal arguments and previous cases. (Para 15 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. determination of cognizance and power limitations of the court. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 6. final judgement and directive from the court. (Para 40) |
ORDER :
1. Crl.M.C.No.7741 of 2025-G has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (`BNSS' for short) by the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 1st accused in Crl.M.P.No.1356/2024 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st respondent is State of Kerala and the 2nd respondent is the complainant in the above Crl.M.P. Allowing Crl.M.Appl.No.2/2025, additional 3rd respondent also was impleaded, since it was found that he had filed complaint and the same resulted in Annexure 6 and 7 orders therein. The prayer in this petition is to quash Annexure 5 private complaint (Crl.M.P.No.1356/2024) and Annexure A8 order dated 14.08.2025.
2. Crl.M.C.No.8392/2025 has been f
A private complaint against a public servant for corruption requires prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, regardless of the complaint's stage.
Prior sanction is mandatory for investigating public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, distinguishing between investigation and cognizance stages.
The sanction contemplated in Section 197 of the Code concerns a public servant who is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the premature nature of the petition and the interpretation of Sec.202 Cr.P.C and the requirement of sanction under Sec.197 Cr.P.C.
The court upheld that cognizance is taken of the offence rather than the offender, enabling supplementary complaints without violating prior hearing mandates, confirming no sanction under Section 197....
Important points:When a complaint is filed before the Magistrate, ordinarily, he has got two options. The Magistrate may either forward the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code fo....
Point of Law : High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Special Judge. Unlike Section 19 of the PC Act, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is available to the public serva....
Bare perusal of Section 17A of P.C. Act would indicate bar for enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence under the P.C. Act is on the Police Officer.
Cognizance cannot be taken twice for the same offence, and prosecution sanction is mandatory for public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
