Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 358 (KER)

T. K. PAVITHRAN v. KERALA LOK AYUKTA AND ANOTHER

2025-02-24

NITIN JAMDAR, S.MANU

body2025
JUDGMENT : Nitin Jamdar, C.J. The Petitioner was the complainant before the Kerala Lok Ayukta. He had filed Complaint No.2723 of 2005 against the 2 nd Respondent, who was the President of the Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery, alleging financial misdemeanour and illegal accumulation of properties. The 2 nd Respondent filed a counter affidavit before the Lok Ayukta and denied the contentions raised by the Petitioner in the complaint. It is contended that no illegalities were committed by him, as alleged by the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner had not filed the complaint bonafide, but out of political rivalry. The Lok Ayukta, by order dated 19 May 2008 dismissed the complaint filed by the Petitioner. 2. Thereafter, the 2 nd Respondent filed an application – I. A. No.415 of 2008 seeking permission to file a complaint against the Petitioner before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery under Section 21(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 (the Act of 1999). The Lok Ayukta, by Ext.P11 order dated 21 October 2008, allowed the application filed by the 2 nd Respondent and granted permission under Section 21(3) of the Act of 1999 to prosecute the Petitioner/Complainant for filing a false complaint against him. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the present petition. In the petition, notice was issued on 17 December 2008 and the impugned order was stayed. 4. Heard Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Joggy Mathunni, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the exercise of power under Section 21(3) of the Act of 1999 is not automatic upon dismissal of the complaint and there is no discussion in the impugned order as to why the permission is being granted. It is submitted that the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner was unable to produce sufficient evidence. It is further submitted that the impugned order, therefore, lacks reasoning and may be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that the Petitioner has been making various complaints against him, maligning his reputation, and there is a clear finding in the order dismissing the complaint that the said complaint is bogus. It is further submitted that the impugned order, therefore, lacks reasoning and may be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that the Petitioner has been making various complaints against him, maligning his reputation, and there is a clear finding in the order dismissing the complaint that the said complaint is bogus. As regards the impugned order, it is submitted that all that is granted by the Lok Ayukta is permission for prosecution and that the Petitioner has all his contentions open in the said prosecution. 7. As regards false complaints are concerned, Section 21 deals with the same. Section 21 of the Act of 1999 reads thus :- “21. Prosecution for false complaint.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, whoever makes any complaint with malicious intention under this Act shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to six months and with fine, which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to five thousand rupees. (2) No Court inferior to that of a Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (1). (3) No such Court shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (1), except on a complaint made by a person against whom false, frivolous or vexatious complaint was made, after obtaining the previous sanction of the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be. (4) The prosecution in relation to an offence under sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the Public Prosecutor and all expenses connected with such prosecution shall be borne by the Goverment.” Therefore, under Section 21, anyone who makes a complaint with malicious intention can be prosecuted and punished with imprisonment for a term not less than three months, which may extend up to six months, along with a fine. No court shall take cognizance of the matter without the sanction of the Lok Ayukta. 8. There are no parameters under Section 21 as regards the grant of sanction by the Lok Ayukta. This, however, does not mean that every complaint that is dismissed must invite the prosecution under Section 21. No court shall take cognizance of the matter without the sanction of the Lok Ayukta. 8. There are no parameters under Section 21 as regards the grant of sanction by the Lok Ayukta. This, however, does not mean that every complaint that is dismissed must invite the prosecution under Section 21. The Act of 1999 is an Act that provides for conducting enquiries into any action, omission, or commission by the Authorities specified under the Act, to bring about transparency and accountability in the administration of such bodies. The Lok Ayukta, upon being informed of such illegalities, has the power to make recommendations to the State Government. This being an important remedy available to citizens to bring their grievances against the officers of the State and other public bodies, the Lok Ayukta, while exercising its power, has to ensure that this remedy is not rendered illusory. If needless deterrent actions are taken against complainants, it will discourage the parties from bringing their grievances against public authorities before the Lok Ayukta. 9. The words ‘false complaint’ and ‘malicious intention’ used in Section 21(1) provide an indication as to how the power under Section 21(1) is to be used. Dismissal of a complaint due to lack of evidence is different from the complaints that are false and malicious. It is not necessary for the Lok Ayukta to write a detailed judgment while granting permission, however, the reasons must be apparent from the record, or in the order dismissing the complaint as to why it is with a malicious intention. 10. The impugned order first narrates the rival contentions and then conclude that the complainant, who has made grave allegations, has failed to substantiate those allegations. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations. The narration in the earlier part of the judgment regarding various other complaints does not necessarily mean that the present complaint before the Lok Ayukta will have to be construed as false and malicious. According to us, the case at hand falls below the threshold that is required to initiate a prosecution under Section 21(3). We have to also take note that the impugned order has now been stayed for more than 17 years. 11. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. According to us, the case at hand falls below the threshold that is required to initiate a prosecution under Section 21(3). We have to also take note that the impugned order has now been stayed for more than 17 years. 11. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21 October 2008 in I.A. No.415 of 2008 in Complaint No.2723 of 2005 is quashed and set aside.