Prior sanction is mandatory for Section 156(3) CrPC investigation against public servants for official acts.

The Petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), was named as an accused in Private Complaint No. 75 of 2005 filed by Respondent No. 2.

The complaint alleged irregularities concerning a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

On May 11, 2005, the Special Judge, Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, acting under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to register an FIR.

Consequently, FIR No. 17/2005 was registered for offences under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) and Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120(B), and 109 of the IPC.

The Petitioner moved the High Court to quash the order and the FIR, contending that as a public servant, he was protected by mandatory sanction requirements.

It was undisputed that the alleged acts were committed in the discharge of official duties and that no prior sanction had been obtained.

Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits courts from taking cognizance of offences alleged against public servants acting in their official capacity without prior government sanction.

Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which creates a mandatory protective shield requiring prior sanction for prosecution under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the Act.

The court relied on the precedent set in Anil Kumar Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa (2013), which established that a Magistrate cannot refer a matter for investigation under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction.

The Division Bench decision in Debashish Chakrabarty v. State of Maharashtra (2015), which affirmed that prior sanction is a condition precedent for orders under Section 156(3).

The court observed that the Petitioner’s status as a "public servant" was uncontested.

Upon reviewing the private complaint, the court found that the allegations specifically pertained to acts committed by the Petitioner while discharging his official functions as Assistant Commissioner.

Applying the ratio from Debashish Chakrabarty, the court reasoned that the statutory protection afforded to public functionaries is intended to prevent vexatious prosecutions and ensure efficient administration.

Since the requirement for sanction is mandatory and goes to the root of the court's jurisdiction, the Special Judge could not have exercised power under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. without such sanction being in place.

Consequently, the order directing the FIR and the subsequent registration of the FIR were held to be void of legal authority.

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and made the rule absolute, quashing the order dated May 11, 2005, FIR No. 17/2005 registered by the ACB, and Private Complaint No. 75/2005 as against the Petitioner.

The court left open the right of Respondent No. 2 to pursue other legal remedies, such as approaching the High Power Committee regarding the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.