Vigilance Court Can't Order Probe Into Private Complaint Against Public Servant Without Sanction Under PC Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision quashed an order made by the Special Judge (Vigilance) directing investigation into a complaint and the FIR registered against a public servant after noting that prior sanction as per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not received.
Justice A. Badharudeen relegated the case back to the pre-cognizance stage and directed the Special Judge to insist of the production of sanction under the PC Act in order to proceed further with the complaint.
In this case, a private person had made a private complaint before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha.
Arraying the petitioner as an accused, the Special Judge passed an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., forwarding the private complaint for investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB). Consequently, an FIR was registered. Challenging the order and the FIR, the petitioner came before the High Court.
The petitioner relied on the decision in Ajithkumar M.R. v. State of Kerala and Anil Kumar v. M.K.Aiyappa [(2013) 10 SCC 705], wherein it was held that in order to forward a complaint under Section 156 Cr.P.C. by a Special Judge, sanction under PC Act is necessary.
Accepting the contention, the Court allowed the plea and set aside the impugned order as well as the FIR. The Court then relegated the case back to pre-cognizance stage and gave opportunity to the complainant to obtain sanction from the authority concerned.
Case No: O.P(Crl.) No. 248 of 2023
Case Title: Anaz M.A. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
Counsel for the petitioner: K. Sandesh Raja
Counsel for the respondents: Rajesh A. – Special Public Prosecutor, Rekha S. – Sr. Public Prosecutor, Sanil Jose, K.P. Antony Binu