Prior Approval Under Section 17A Of PC Act Cannot Be Bypassed By Projecting Only IPC Offence While Filing FIR | Karnataka High Court Quashes Charges Against Ex-MLC
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the registration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner, a former public servant, was impermissible in law due to the absence of prior approval as required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court quashed the entire proceedings, including the FIR and chargesheet, insofar as they pertained to the petitioner. The order clarified that the relief granted was restricted solely to the petitioner and would not affect proceedings against the co-accused.
The petitioner, aged 78 years, is a former Member of the Karnataka Legislative Council and had served as the Chairman of D. Devaraj Urs Truck Terminal Limited, a Government of Karnataka enterprise. The matter arose from a complaint filed on 22 September 2023 by the then Managing Director of the company, alleging large-scale irregularities in the award of work contracts during the petitioner’s tenure as Chairman.
The 194th Board meeting of the Directors, held on 25 October 2021, reportedly approved 38 resolutions, including contracts for emergency repair and maintenance work. The complaint stated that these works, amounting to approximately ₹47.10 crores, were allegedly awarded without inviting tenders, violating the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999.
A crime was registered under FIR No. 243 of 2023 at Wilson Garden Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, the authorities also invoked offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The petitioner challenged the proceedings by filing a writ petition, contending that no prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act was obtained before initiating the investigation, although the allegations concerned acts committed in his capacity as a public servant. While approval was obtained against another accused (the Managing Director), no such approval was granted against the petitioner.
The petitioner submitted that the prosecution deliberately filed the FIR under IPC provisions to circumvent the mandatory safeguard under Section 17A. It was further argued that the subsequent inclusion of PC Act offences in the chargesheet, without prior approval, rendered the proceedings void ab initio.
The prosecution opposed the petition, asserting that the FIR was initially registered under IPC offences, and approval under Section 17A was not required at that stage. It was submitted that sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act had been obtained after filing the chargesheet, making the prosecution legally sustainable.
The records showed that the Special Court had accepted the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and had noted that Accused No.1 was in judicial custody while the petitioner (Accused No.2) was on bail. Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act was issued by the competent authority on 31 December 2024.
The Court recorded: “What unmistakably emerges from the grant of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is that, the offence always related to the functioning of the petitioner as a public servant.”
It stated: “The prosecution has devised a method of projecting only offences under Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC which are clearly identical to Section 13 of the PC Act, to get away with the rigour of prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.”
The Court observed the procedural failure: “A situation may ensue that against a public servant, crime has to be registered, if it has to be registered for offences under the PC Act prior approval under Section 17A is mandatory, but if it is to be registered on a verbatim similar offence of Section 409 of the IPC, such prior approval would not be required.”
It further stated: “The prosecution comes up with a novel idea of registering a crime against unknown persons, while they are fully aware of the fact of the matter and who is allegedly responsible. This is what is discernible from the complaint.”
Referring to the allegations, the Court noted: “Everything in the complaint relates to the 194th Board resolution. The petitioner is the Chairman and the Managing Director is the Member of the Board. Narration is about all that has happened in the Board meeting and its execution. Who else can be blamed; it is the petitioner and others. But the crime is registered against unknown persons.”
It concluded: “It is a deliberate act on the part of the prosecution to get away the rigour of Section 17A of the PC Act. Therefore, the proceedings as against the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue.”
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the registration of crime against the petitioner in Crime No.243 of 2023, along with all consequential proceedings.
It directed that the quashing was restricted solely to the petitioner and would not extend to any other accused in the case.
The Court clarified that all findings rendered in the course of the order were solely for the purpose of considering the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and would not be construed as applicable to any other accused in the concerned crime.
It concluded that, in view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A. No.1 of 2024 did not survive for consideration and was accordingly disposed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri Angad Kamath, Advocate; Sri Harishkumar C., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Praveen Gowda, Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1; Sri M.N. Munireddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Case Title: Sri D.S. Veeraiah v. State of Karnataka and Another
Case Number: W.P. No. 31828 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
[Read/Download order]
