MINI M. vs STATE OF KERALA

Court
Kerala High Court

2026:KER:36757
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
TUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF MAY 2026 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 4130 OF 2026
CRIME NO.VC.04/KNR//2025 OF VACB, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MINI M.
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O RAMESH BABU N.K., WORKING AS SECRETARY (NOW UNDER ORDERS
OF TERMINATION), NEERVELI VANITHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD NO. C.1409 NEERVELI P.O., KANNUR - 670 701.
RESIDING AT DWARAKA, KOTTAYAM MALABAR P.O., KUTHUPARAMBA,
KANNUR, PIN - 670643
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
SHRI.TARUN PHILIP
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 REMA.K
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O. DASAN, RESIDING AT EROTH HOUSE, SANKANANELLOOR POST,
MANGATTIDAM AMSOM, KOYILODE DESAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670643
SPL PP – RAJESH A.
SR PP - REKHA.S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.05.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

2026:KER:36757
Crl.M.C. No. 4130 of 2026
2

“C.R”
ORDER
th
Dated this the 26 day of May, 2026
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
st
Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner, who is the 1 accused in
Crime No.V.C. 04/KNR/2025 of VACB, Kannur, seeking the
following reliefs:
“i) To set aside Annexure II FIR, and
Annexure III prosecution sanction order as unjust,
illegal and arbitrary;
ii) To declare that the petitioner is not liable
to be prosecuted based on Annexure II FIR, and
Annexure III prosecution sanction order;
iii) To direct the respondents to refrain from
proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of
Annexure II FIR, and Annexure III prosecution
sanction order;
iv) To pass such other order which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
considering the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case in the interest of justice.
v) To dispense with the filing of the

2026:KER:36757
Crl.M.C. No. 4130 of 2026
3
translation of vernacular documents.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused relevant
materials available.
3. In this matter, the prosecution allegation as per
the FIR is that, during two separate terms upto the year
st
2024, the petitioner/1 accused, who has been working as
Secretary of Neerveli Women Co-operative Society,
hatched criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 14,
who were the members of the Governing Committee, to
obtain unlawful financial gain by sanctioning fake and
benami loans in the names of Rama K (the complainant
herein) and Sheeba M.K, who were working as collection
agents and in the names of their relatives, instead of
granting the same to the actual borrowers and thereby
caused huge financial loss to the Society. It is further
alleged that, the accused also misappropriated money
from fixed deposits, without the knowledge of the
depositors by forging their signatures and creating forged
documents and thereby committed criminal breach of

2026:KER:36757
Crl.M.C. No. 4130 of 2026
4
trust and cheating against the depositors. On this
premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences
punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act,
1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] and
under Sections 409, 475, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code [hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for short], by the
accused.
4. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, none of the offences would attract against the
st
petitioner/1 accused and the registration of FIR against
her and other accused is unsustainable. Therefore,
Annexure-II FIR is liable to be quashed. He also submitted
that, Annexure-III prior approval issued under Section 17A
of the P.C. Act was not issued by the competent authority.
Therefore, the very enquiry and registration of Annexure-II
FIR are illegal and the prayers sought for in this petition
are liable to be allowed.
5. Repelling the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor

2026:KER:36757
Crl.M.C. No. 4130 of 2026
5
would submit that, in this case, the allegation of the
prosecution is misappropriation of funds and for which,
prior approval under Section 17A of the P.C. Act as
amended, is not necessary. Therefore, mere issuance of
Annexure-III would not take away the power of the
Investigating Officer to register FIR and investigate into
the allegations. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed
decisions of this Court viz. Jayaprakash v. State of
Kerala [2022 (1) KLT 126] and Shankara Bhat and
Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2021 (5) KHC
248 : 2021 (2) KLD 367] in support of his contentions.
6. In view of the rival contentions, the questions to
be decided are (1) which are the cases where prior
approval under Section 17A of the P.C. Act as amended is
required? and (2) whether prior approval under Section
17A of the P.C. Act as amended is required to conduct
enquiry and investigation into the allegations raised in this
case?
7. Section 17A of the P.C. Act as amended in 2018
provides as under:

2026:KER:36757
Crl.M.C. No. 4130 of 2026
6
“ 17-A. Enquiry or Inquiry or
investigation of offences relatable to re-
commendations made or decision taken by
public servant in discharge of official
functions or duties. -No police officer shall
conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation
into any offence alleged to to have been
committed by a public servant under this Act,
where the alleged offence is relatable to any
recommendation made or decision taken by such
public servant in discharge of his official functions
or duties, without the previous approval-
(a) in the case of a person who is or was
employed, at the time when the offence was
alleged to have been committed, in connection
with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is or was
employed, at the time when the offence was
alleged to have been committed, in connection
with the affairs of a State, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the
authority competent to remove him from his
office, at the time when the offence was alleged to
have been committed:
Provided that no such approval shall be
necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on
the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting
to accept any undue advantage for himself or for
any other person:

2026:KER:36757
Crl.M.C. No. 4130 of 2026
7
Provided further that the concerned
authority shall convey its decision under this
section within a period of three months, which
may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such
authority, be extended by a further period of one
month.”
8. Even a meticulous reading of Section 17A of the
P.C. Act would make it clear that, prior approval is
necessary to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or
investigation into any offence alleged to to have been
committed by a public servant under the Act, specifically
on two counts viz. (1) where the alleged offence is relatable
to any recommendation made and (2) where the alleged
offence is relatable to any decision taken by the public
servant in discharge of his official functions or duties. The
necessary corollary is that, in all other cases except the
above two, prior approval under Section 17A of the P.C. Act
as amended is not required.
9. In the instant case, misappropriation of funds is
the main allegation based on fake loans and the same is
not at all based on a recommendation or decision taken by

2026:KER:36757
Crl.M.C. No. 4130 of 2026
8
the public servant, herein the petitioner. Therefore, prior
approval under Section 17A of the P.C. Act as amended is
not required to register FIR and to conduct investigation in
this case. Moreover, in this case an enquiry was ordered as
per Annexure-III prior approval issued by the Additional
Chief Secretary to the Government.
10. Going through the allegation as extracted herein
above, prima facie, the offences alleged are made out and
therefore, the same would require effective investigation.
In such a case, quashment of Annexure-II FIR, without
allowing investigation is found to be unwarranted, as the
allegations would require effective investigation to reach a
logical conclusion.
Therefore, this petition is found to be meritless and
the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this
petition stands dismissed, with liberty to the Investigating
Officer to proceed with investigation and complete the
same without much delay.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
SK
JUDGE

2026:KER:36757
Crl.M.C. No. 4130 of 2026
9
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 4130 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE WITHDRAWAL LETTER DATED
05.07.2024, SUBMITTED BY THE COMPLAINANT TO
THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES(GENERAL) KUTHUPARAMBA ALONG WITH
TYPED COPY.
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.
VC.04/2025/KNR DATED 28.05.2025 OF V.A.C.B,
KANNUR.
Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. VIGI-B2/146/2024-
VIGI DATED 22.05.2024.