Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1862
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUSTICE, J
Thiru.K.Shivakumar – Appellant
Versus
DVAC – Respondent
Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 | FIR in Crime No 2 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ravi Anantha Padmanaban, Mr. V. Karthic, Mr. John Sathyan
For the Respondents: Mr. J. Ravindran, Mr. K.M.D Muhilan
Approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act must involve a thorough application of mind to prevent vexatious prosecutions; lack of evidence led to quashing of the FIR.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 17-A - FIR registration for alleged corruption against public servant - Approval for FIR challenged on grounds of malafide and lack of application of mind - Court finds the allegations insufficiently substantiated and quashes FIR due to lack of evidence and procedural compliance. (Paras 10, 11, 30, 39)
(B) Public Servants - Protection under Section 17-A of PCA - Mandatory approval required for investigation into actions taken in official capacity - Court emphasizes the need for proper application of mind by approving authority to prevent vexatious prosecutions. (Paras 20, 21, 38)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former Commissioner, faced allegations of corruption related to contract awards for cleaning municipal schools and procurement of medical supplies, with claims of financial loss to the municipality. The FIR was filed after a lengthy preliminary inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR lacked sufficient evidence and was based on potentially vexatious complaints, leading to the conclusion that the approval process under Section 17-A was inadequately applied.
Issues: Whether the FIR was justified based on the allegations and if the approval under Section 17-A was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the approval under Section 17-A must involve a thorough application of mind and cannot be merely a formality; the lack of supporting evidence led to the quashing of the FIR.
Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case and fir details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. grounds for challenging the fir. (Para 3 , 4) |
his is a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023 filed by the first accused seeking to quash a FIR in Crime No 2 of 2023 on the file of the respondent DVAC.
The Facts
2. At the relevant time material to this case, the petitioner was serving as the Commissioner of Pallavaram Municipality. B ased on a complaint by a certain Anbalagan, now deceased, dated 27.03.2017 the first respondent has held a preliminary enquiry and proceeded to obtain an approval as is mandated under Sec.17A of the PCA vide proceedings dated 21.12.2021 and chose to register the FIR against five individuals for offences under Section 120- B , 406, 409 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . In terms of the FIR, three-pointed allegations are made against the petitioner in combination with other accused. They are:
a) When the petitioner (A1) was the Commissioner of Pallavaram Municipality, he had awarded a contract to M/s.Deepthi Enterprises, arrayed as A3, which is a proprietary concern, to clean the toilets of 11 municipality-run schools for the year 2015-2016. This contract was awarded to the proprietrix of A3 concern without following the tender procedure envisaged under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 . The second part of the allegation is that during summer vacation of the year 2016 (May 2016), when the schools were not functioning, when there was no need for cleaning the toilets, A3 raised bills as if she had executed the contract work for May 2016 and this document was accepted by A2, who was working as engineer of the Municipality, acting on which the present petitioner had passed the bills. The specific allegation is that based on the incorrect records, A1 paid full amount of Rs.8,55,000/- to M/s.Deepthi Enterprises. But he was supposed to pay only a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to M/s.Deepthi Enterprises for cleaning 47 toilets that were used during the vacation holidays of 2015, whereas, he had paid an additional sum of Rs.6,85,000/- to M/s.Deepthi Enterprises and therefore A1 Thiru.K.Shivakumar, caused financial loss to Pallavaram Municipality, to the tune of Rs.6,85,000/- and committed grave offence, based on which accusations were levelled against A1 to A3.
b) During the year 2015 - 2016 contract was issued to A4, a private limited company, for executing the policy of the Government to prevent and eradicate dengue in Pallavaram Municipality area. This contract was issued without following the tender procedures. There is no financial loss.
c) The third allegation is that for treatment of elephantiasis, orders were placed with A5, a private limited company, which manufactures and supplies a medicine named Fenthion by A1 without following the tender procedures. Bills were paid without making any entry in the stock register or without any entry in the distrubution register to show their proof of dispatch and the suspected loss to the Municipality is around Rs.4,92,487/-.
2.1 On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the respondent sought the approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for registering a case and to investigate the aforesaid allegations, secured it vide proceedings dated 21.12.2021, following which the FIR came to be registered, not immediately, but after some 27 months, on 13.03.2023, some 6 years after the complaint was made against the petitioner along with A2 and the agencies A3 -A5 who are all the alleged beneficiaries of the petitioner’s decision. At that point of time, the petitioner was serving as the Commissioner of Erode Municipal Corporation.
3. The FIR registered by the respondent is now under challenge, and the grounds are:
a) The FIR is borne out of a personal grudge between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, who was already being prosecuted for blackmailing the petitioner and other Municipal Commissioners, IAS, and IPS offi
