A Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and proceedings against a public servant without the mandatory prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. are liable to be quashed as an abuse of process.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in CC No.1037 of 2017 on the file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, at Miyapur, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 409, 418, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC, Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’).

Heard Sri Srinivas Kapatia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent No.2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner-accused No.1, who is a retired Sub-Registrar, along with other accused conspired with a criminal intent to cheat the government, created a fabricated document for causing wrongful loss to the government and wrongfully gaining money and further that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Registration Act, and being a public servant, the petitioner committed the offence of criminal misconduct by illegal means. Thus, charge sheet is filed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 409, 418, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’). Subsequent to filing of charge sheet, the XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad, has taken cognizance of the said offence. The present petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cognizance has been taken by the court of Magistrate, which do not have jurisdiction to try the case under PC Act. He further has submitted that it is only a Special Court, which has jurisdiction to try the offences under PC Act and thus, the cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate is not tenable and continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in the said court would be an abuse of process of law. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is a must to launch any prosecution against the public servant, but in the present case, no such sanction is obtained and without there being any sanction, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and hence, the proceedings cannot be continued. Learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Amod Kumar Kanth v Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy and another¹1 (2023) 16 SCC 239, Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. and another²2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 433, G.C. Manjunath and others v. Seetaram³3 (2025) 5 SCC 390 and Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta and another⁴4 (2025(5) SCC 481 in support of his contention. He further has submitted that the proceedings against the other accused in the present case were quashed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide Crl.P.No.1527 of 2019 and Crl.P. No.159 of 2019 and batch. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner herein was the Sub-Registrar and that he has facilitated the registration of lands, which were in the prohibitory list and which cannot be registered and that ignoring the same, the petitioner has gone ahead with the same, which is an offence of serious nature and that the prosecution has ample material to prove the offence against the petitioner. That the case of the present petitioner stands on a different footing from the other accused against whom, the proceedings were quashed. He therefore, submitted to dismiss the petition.

Perused the record.

The record discloses that on 30.05.2017, a complaint was received from LW.1-resondent No.2 wherein he reported that one document bearing No.23/BK4/16 has been registered at the Sub-Registrar Office,