Anaz M.A. S/o A.M. Abdulbari vs State of Kerala

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Ker) 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Anaz M.A. S/o A.M. Abdulbari – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
O.P. (Crl.) No. 248 of 2023
Decided On : 14-01-2026

Important Points

The Special Judge cannot order an investigation against a public servant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without a valid sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.

Subject

Criminal Law - Corruption

Act Referred

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.156, S.156(3)
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.19, S.19(1)

Headnote

This Original Petition was filed challenging the order of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), directing a complaint to be forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Court highlighted the necessity of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act before proceeding further against a public servant. The findings reiterated that the Special Judge lacks the power to order an investigation in the absence of a valid sanction under the relevant provisions of law. As such, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the previous orders and allowing the complainant to seek the necessary sanction before further proceedings.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. Sandesh Raja
For the Respondents: Sanil Jose, K.P. Antony Binu, Rajesh A., Rekha S.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks relief from the court. (Para 2)
2. arguments on legality of investigation proceedings. (Para 3 , 5)
3. court’s observations on necessary sanctions under law. (Para 4 , 6)
4. final decision on the legal standing of the previous orders. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Call for the records relating to Exhibits P3 order and P4 FIR and to quash Ext.P3 order of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance) Muvattupuzha dated 08.06.2022 in CMP 29A/2020 and Ext.P4 FIR registered by the 2^nd respondent.

(ii) Such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.

(iii) The petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of the translation of the vernacular documents.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, who is the complainant in CMP 29A/2020 on the files of the Enqiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha, detail.

3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is arrayed as accused as per Ext.P3 order dated 08.06.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) Muvattupuzha, forwarding a complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent for investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Ernakulam, under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C' for short) for registering a crime, which is unsustainable since the law in force doesn't permit the said course of action. He also pointed out the decision of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.7741/2025 and Crl.M.C.No.8392/2025 dated 21.11.2025 reported in Ajith Kumar M.R. v. State of Kerala, 2025 KHC OnLine 1228 referring Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705, while holding that in order to forward a complaint under Section 156 of Cr.P.C by a Special Judge, sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988' for short) is necessary.

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor did not dispute this legal position which has been extensively discussed in Ajith Kumar M.R's case (supra).

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent that since the learned Special Judge already issued a direction to register FIR and Ext.P4 FIR also was registered, interference in Exts.P3 and P4 at the instance of this Court is totally unwarranted. Therefore, this petition is liable to fail.

6. In paragraph 34 of Ajith Kumar M.R's case (supra), this Court considered the impact of the judgment in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa’s case (supra) as under:

“34. If at all the view taken in the judgments referred by Advocate M.P.Shameen Ahamed is given emphasis, it is necessary to consider the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for M.R.Ajith Kumar also. Thus the arguments at the instance of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M.R.Ajith Kumar is that the Apex Court in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa (supra) considered the finding of the High Court by quashing the order passed by the Special Judge after holding that the Special Judge could not have taken notice of a private complaint against a public servant unless the same was accompanied by a sanction order under Section 19 (1) of PC Act, 1988, irrespective of whether the court was acting at a pre cognizance stage or at post cognizance stage. While addressing correctness of the said order, the Apex Court held in paragraph Nos.11 and 15 that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156 (3) or Section 200 of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, and in such a case the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for investigation against a public servant without a valid sanction under (1) of the PC Act, 1988. Further it was held that the word `cognizance' h