Is There A Need For Sanction U/S. 17A PC Act When Magistrate Orders Investigation U/S. 156(3) CrPC? Supreme Court Tags Yediyurappa’s Corruption Case For Reference To Larger Bench
The Supreme Court refrained from deciding the issue regarding the need for a sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act when a Magistrate has ordered an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to maintain 'judicial discipline.'
The Supreme Court has referred former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa’s land case under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to a larger Bench for consideration.
The Court deliberated on "whether the considerations under Section 17A of the PC Act are of such a nature that they are necessarily beyond the ambit or scope of consideration by a Magistrate while directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.?"
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held, “As for maintaining judicial discipline a coordinate bench of this Court has refrained from proceeding further in deciding the underlying issue, which is under reference to a larger bench, we deem it appropriate to tag these petitions with the referred matter Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora & Ors.”
Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra, Siddharth Dave, Kiran Javali, Anitha Shenoy, Sajan Poovayya and Vikas Singh appeared for the Appellant, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
At the time of commission of the alleged offences, the Petitioner held the CM’s office. By an Order passed under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC, the complaint was referred to Lokayukta police for investigation. Pursuant thereto, FIR was registered.
Pursuant to the investigation, a final report was submitted, and cognizance was taken. Aggrieved with the same, the Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings by placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa (2013), wherein it was held that “once it was noticed that there was no previous sanction, the Magistrate cannot order investigation against the public servant while invoking powers under section 156 (3) of CrPC.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court questioned "Whether the considerations which weigh with the appropriate authority or government while granting approval under Section 17A of the PC Act are fundamentally so different from the one that a Magistrate is ordinarily expected to apply while passing an order under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. so as to preclude the Magistrate from fulfilling the object underlying Section 17A of the PC Act?".
The Bench framed the following question as well, "whether the considerations under Section 17A of the PC Act are of such a nature that they are necessarily beyond the ambit or scope of consideration by a Magistrate while directing an investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.?".
The Court also posed the question of whether "once a Magistrate has applied his mind under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., the requirement of a prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act is meaningless, redundant and no longer necessary?".
Additionally, the Bench inquired, "Could it be said that a police officer, despite a direction under Section 156 (3) by a Magistrate, would remain inhibited from conducting any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation without prior approval as required by Section 17A?". "If yes," the Court asked, "how does the standard of application of mind by the appropriate authority differ from that of the Magistrate?".
The Court stated that while deciding on the issue relating to the applicability of Aiyappa’s (supra) decision, it came across an Order of a coordinate bench in Shamin Khan v. Debashish (2024) held, “We are of the considered view that scanning of the provisions under Sections 156(3), 173(2), 190, 200, 202, 203 and 204 of the CrPC would, prima facie, reveal that while directing for an investigation and forwarding the complaint therefor, the Magistrate is not actually taking cognizance.”
Cause Title: BS Yeddiyurappa v. A Alam Pasha & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 515)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra, Siddharth Dave, Kiran Javali, Anitha Shenoy, Sajan Poovayya and Vikas Singh; AOR Srishti Agnihotri, Prateek Chadha and D. L. Chidana; Advocates Joseph Pookkatt, Nilesh Sharma, Dhawesh Pahuja, Awantika Manohar, Ayushma Awasthi, Sanjana Grace Thomas, D.P.singh, Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Niharika Srivast, et al
Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; Senior Advocate R. Basant; AAG Aman Panwar and Prateek K Chadha; AOR V. N. Raghupathy, Vikas Upadhyay, et al; Advocates Ashwin Kumar Nair, Ankita Kashyap, Gaurav Gk, Gopalakrishna, Sneha Abraham, Aayushi Sharma, Ranveer Singh, Wazid Hasan, et al