Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No. 202 of 2026 registered by Kothanur Police Station for offences under Sections 318(4), 335(a)(ii), 336(3), 238, 61(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The petitioners, Micah Mark in Crl.P.8401/2026 and R. Jonathan Sushil and four others in Crl.P.8417/2026, challenged the FIR on the ground that no prior approval under Section 13 of UAPA was obtained from the Central Government before registering the FIR and commencing investigation. The respondents were the State of Karnataka and the Directorate of Enforcement. The court noted that Section 13 of UAPA mandates that no investigation under the Act shall be conducted without the prior approval of the Central Government. The court found that the FIR did not disclose any such approval, and the investigation was therefore without jurisdiction. The court rejected the argument that Section 528 of BNSS could cure the defect, holding that BNSS is procedural and cannot override the substantive requirement of a special statute. The court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Lack of Sanction - Section 13 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - The court considered whether the FIR and investigation could be quashed for want of prior sanction under Section 13 of UAPA. The court held that the mandatory requirement of prior approval under Section 13 of UAPA cannot be dispensed with, and the absence of such sanction renders the investigation invalid. The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Sanction for Investigation - Section 528 BNSS, 2023 - The court examined whether Section 528 of BNSS could override the mandatory sanction requirement under UAPA. The court held that BNSS is a procedural law and cannot override the substantive requirement of sanction under a special statute like UAPA. (Paras 5-8) C) Unlawful Activities - Prior Approval - Section 13 UAPA - The court interpreted Section 13 of UAPA to require prior approval of the Central Government before investigation. The court held that the investigation conducted without such approval is void ab initio. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and investigation can be quashed for want of prior sanction under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and whether the provisions of BNSS can override the mandatory requirement of sanction under UAPA.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 202 of 2026 and all consequential proceedings.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 13 of UAPA is mandatory before investigation
- Lack of prior approval vitiates the entire investigation
- Section 528 BNSS cannot cure absence of sanction
