Madhya Pradesh High Court
Meenakshi Sharma (Mishra) vs Urban Administration And ... on 26 April, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 26 th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 17085 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MEENAKSHI SHARMA (MISHRA) D/O SHRI
BHUWANESHWAR PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE 33-34, ADITYA NAGAR
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI A.K. CHITALE, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SANJAY
JAMINDAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1.STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN
ADMINISTRATION AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, PALIKA BHAVAN, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
NO.6 LOCALITY, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.THE COMMISSIONER, URBAN
ADMINISTRATION AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, PALIKA BHAVAN, SHIVAJI NAGAR
NO. 6 LOCALITY, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.THE COMMISSIONER, UJJAIN MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, KSHTRAPATI SHIVAJI BHAWAN,
AGAR ROAD, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.LOKAYUKTA ORGANIZATION THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY, F-BLOCK, SULTANIA ROAD, OLD
SACHIVALAYA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.DIRECTOR GENERAL SPECIAL POLICE
ESTABLISHMENT (LOKAYUKTA), F-BLOCK,
SULTANIA, ROAD, OLD SACHIVALAYA, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 4/27/2023
6:46:21 PM
2
6.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL
POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKTA, KOTHI
ROAD, VIKRAM UNIVERSITY, UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7.THE INSPECTOR, SPECIAL POLICE
ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKT OFFICE, KOTHI
ROAD, VIKRAM UNIVERSITY UJJAIN(MADHYA
PRADESH)
8.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL
PO L I C E ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKTA, MOTI
BUNGALOW, MG ROAD, INDORE DIVISION,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
9.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKTA,
MOTI BUNGALOW, MG ROAD, INDORE DIVISION,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
10.DIVYA JADON D/O PRAYAGSINGH JADON, R/O
VILLAGE GAWDI LODHA, TEHSIL BADNAGAR,
DISTRICT - UJJAIN(M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANAND SONI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NOS.1 &2/STATE)
(SHRI RISHI TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3)
(SHRI VAIBHAV JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS N
OS.4 TO 9)
(SHRI MANGESH BHACHAWAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
INTERVENER).
This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT
ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
ORDER
Heard finally, with the consent of both the parties.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking following reliefs :-
(a) the petition may kindly be allowed and appropriate
writ/directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to
close the investigation being conducted against the petitioner
with respect to Crime No.43/2021 registered by the Special
Police Establishment.
Signature Not Verified
(b) The respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 4/27/2023
6:46:21 PM
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of
Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, Yashwant
Sinha Vs. CBI (2020) 2 SCC 338 & Kavindra Kiyawat Vs.
State of M.P.; 2020 SCC Online MP 4151 while investigating
the allegations made against the petitioner.
(c) The respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the
provisions of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 before conduction any investigation against the
petitioner.
(d) The impugned FIR No.43/2021 registered by the Special
Police Establishment(Annexure-P/1) against the petitioner may
kindly be quashed.
(e) To quash the Annexures P/17 & P/18.
(f) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may be
granted to the petitioners
.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a public servant as
defined under Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (in short .... "The Act").
The basic grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are
prosecuting the case without getting any sanction as required under Section 17-
A(1)(C) of the Act. The aforesaid section mandates that no inquiry or
investigation can be conducted against a public servant which is relatable to any
recommendation or decision taken in discharge of his official functions or
duties without obtaining prior approval of the competent authority. However, in
the instant case, in gross violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner, an
FIR has been registered against her at Crime No.43/2021 by the Special Police
Establishment for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(a)(b) of the Act
and Section 120-B of I.P.C. without the investigating agency conducting any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 4/27/2023
6:46:21 PM
preliminary inquiry and without obtaining prior permission of the competent
authority.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Apex
Court judgment in the case of Yashwant Sinha Vs. CBI reported in (2020) 2
SCC 338, in which it is held that in terms of Section 17-A, no police officer is
permitted to conduct any inquiry or investigation without previous approval.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed the prayer and submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain
the present writ petition in view of the fact that the plea with regard to non-
compliance of Section 17-A of the Act, validity of sanction and other ancillary
reliefs can be agitated before the trial Court itself. Learned counsel for the
respondents vehemently pressed into service the decision of the Apex Court
judgment in the case of Prakash Singh Badal and Another Vs. State of
Punjab and Others reported in AIR 2007 SC 1274 , came to the conclusion
as under :-
"In our view, having regard to the facts of the present case,
now since cognizance has already been taken against the
appellant by the trial Judge, the High Court cannot be said
to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction
open for consideration by the trial Court and giving liberty
to the appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of
sanction order in the course of trial."
In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar
Agrawal; (2014) SCC 295, the Apex Court further held that undoubtedly the
stage of examining the validity of sanction is during the "trial" and we do not
propose to say that the validity should be examined during the stage of enquiry
or at pre-trial stage.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 4/27/2023
6:46:21 PM
In the present case, admittedly, the challan was filed on 08/07/2022
whereas the present writ petition has been filed on 21/07/2022 i.e. after filing of
the challan.
In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Apex Court judgment, we
are of the considered opinion that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case do not warrant any interference in the present writ petition and,
accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed. However, the petitioner would be
at liberty to approach the trial Court raising all the objections regarding the
validity of sanction and non-compliance of Section 17-A of the Act and other
grounds which may be admissible, in accordance with law.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 4/27/2023
6:46:21 PM
