The requirement of prosecution sanction is essential for initiating investigative proceedings under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

ORDER

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.154 of 2024, dated 03.04.2025 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Tirunelveli, dismissing the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of 15 flats in Luxuriya Apartments, located at 10, Madurai Road, Tirunelveli Junction and out of 15 Flats, he already sold 6 flats to individual buyers and is holding the remaining 9 flats. The second respondent purchased Flat No.6 from the revision petitioner and he approached the petitioner and offered to take steps with Corporation for getting the drinking water connection for the apartment.

3. The petitioner agreed to the second respondent's offer with two specific conditions ie., he should not pay any bribe to any one in the process of obtaining water service connection and he should not do any work of actually laying water pipelines. When the revision petitioner was out of station, the second respondent, without his permission and against the conditions imposed, laid the pipeline from main road to about 15 feet inside the driveway of the second respondent and by giving Rs.15,000/- as bribe for obtaining water connection.

4. The second respondent gave a paper listing out the expenses incurred for getting service connection and for laying of pipeline, which includes Rs.15,000/- given as bribe. The second respondent has also sent the above particulars to the residents of the said apartment through their whatsapp group. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the Tirunelveli Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police on 03.07.2023 with regard to the bribe given and requesting them to take action against the second respondent. In the enquiry conducted on 04.03.2024, the petitioner was examined and at that time, he gave the list of expenses given by the second respondent and also the message shared through whatsapp.

5. Since the second respondent has informed at the enquiry that bribe amount was given through the petitioner's previous Manager Rengasamy, he was also summoned and examined. The petitioner's previous manager has informed that he never received any amount nor gave it to any person as bribe.

6.The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Southern Range sent a letter, dated 18.04.2024, to the petitioner informing him that his complaint was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City for necessary enquiry. But no enquiry was conducted and hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the above petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for registration of the case and for investigation.

7. The learned Special Judge has taken the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., on file in Crl.M.P.No.154 of 2024 and upon perusing the petitioner's affidavit and the counter affidavit filed by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police, Tirunelveli and on hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Special Public Prosecutor, by observing that the petitioner has not shown any prima facie materials to proceed further, dismissed the petition vide order, dated 03.04.2025. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the present revision came to be filed.

8.As already pointed out, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police, Tirunelveli, filed a counter statement before the Special Court and according to them, the complaint sent by the petitioner has been received by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption on 18.07.2023