SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 299

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
JAYAPRAKASH J – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5714 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV BABU S. NAIR
For the Respondents: SRI A RAJESH -SPL PP VACB, SMT REKHA S-SR PP

Preliminary inquiry is not mandatory for FIR registration in corruption cases, and prior approvals under Section 17A are only necessary when directly linked to official duties.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(a), 13(2), 420, 468, 471 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of forgery and misappropriation by public servants - Supreme Court held that preliminary inquiry is not mandatorily required before registering FIR if cognizable offence is disclosed; registration is proper without prior approval under Section 17A when crimes are not directly linked to official duties. (Paras 8-14)

(B) Inquiry and Investigation - Issues concerning prior approval requirement for investigating public servants under the Act which must not hinder enforcement against allegations of corruption. (Paras 20-22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, public servants at the Travancore Devaswom Board, were accused of misappropriating funds by forging documents to authorize payments not legitimately owed, totaling Rs. 51,77,194/-. The application sought to quash allegations citing lack of preliminary inquiry and required approvals.

Findings of Court:
Investigation by VACB was warranted; no requirement for preliminary inquiry before FIR registration noted. Prior approval under Section 17A of the Act is not necessary except where duties are directly implicated in a corrupt act. Investigation continues.

Issues: Whether a preliminary inquiry is mandatory before the registration of FIR in corruption cases, and whether prior approval for investigation under Section 17 A was required.

Ratio Decidendi: FIR registration is appropriate when cognizable offences are disclosed, without needing a preliminary inquiry. The accused's actions, when involving alleged forgery, are not protected under Section 17A, thus investigation is valid.

Result: The petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. accused are public servants alleged of financial misconduct. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7)
2. preliminary inquiry not necessarily required before filing fir in corruption cases. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. prior approval not required under section 17a when offences are not linked to official functions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. the decision to approve investigations is based on the nature of allegations relating to office functions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. the decision to dismiss the petition affirms the validity of investigations without prior approvals. (Para 34)

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 (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. Governm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top