Madhya Pradesh High Court
Special Police Establishment Indore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16449
1 WP-16659-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 2 nd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 16659 of 2021
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT INDORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Soni - Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
The petitioner - Special Police Establishment,Lokayukta, Indore, has
filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
against order/letter dated 23.10.2019 passed by respondent No.1 and
03.10.2019 (Annexure P/12) passed by respondent No.2 by which, they have
not granted sanction for prosecution against respondent No.3 for the offences
punishable u/s. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and u/s. 409, 120-B of the IPC. The petitioner is praying for the following
reliefs:-
"7.1) That, in the facts and circumstances of the case
this petition may kindly be allowed and the letter/order
Annexure P/11, Annexure P/12 & also the
order/opinion of the respondent No. 1 (which is part of
Annex P/13) may kindly be quashed, and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16449
2 WP-16659-2021
Respondent No. 1 & 2 be directed to grant prosecution
sanction in the matter.
7.2) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deems appropriate in the facts of the case be also
granted."
02. Facts of the case are that on allegation of corruption, FIR No.
104/2013 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and u/s. 409, 120-B of the IPC had registered by Special Police
Establishment Lokayukt against the respondent No. 3, who was working on
the post of Sub-Engineer. After investigation, it was found that there are 9
accused persons involved in the aforesaid crime, therefore, sanction for
prosecution was requested. Against some of the accused persons, sanction
for prosecution has been granted, but it has been rejected for respondent
No.3, therefore, this petition has been filed assailing the rejection orders
Annexure P/11 & 12.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is ample
evidence to connect the respondent No.3 with the alleged crime. The
allegation against the respondent No. 3 is that being a public servant she had
illegally made inappropriate payment of Rs.2.55 lakhs for the work of
Village Panchayat - Boreli under MNREGA policy, therefore, prays for
reliefs as claimed in the present Writ Petition.
04. Learned counsel for the respondent(s)/State submits that the
respondent No. 3 came to know through newspaper about the registration of
FIR against her. The respondent though being posted at Gram Panchayat -
Boreli on the post of Sub-Engineer in between 07.05.2010 to 05.01.2011, but
she has not done any work in the said Village Panchayat during the aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16449
3 WP-16659-2021
tenure, therefore, no question of committing irregularity as alleged arises.
05. Learned counsel for the respondent(s)/State further submits that
she has been falsely implicated in the case, therefore, after going through the
record, Department has not given prosecution sanction against her which has
also been scrutinised and upheld by the Department of Law, therefore, no
relief as prayed in this Writ Petition can be granted.
06. We have heard and considered the rival submissions made by the
parties.
07. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that after going through
the relevant documents and record made available to the Department reached
to the conclusion that granting prosecution sanction against the respondent
No.3 is not required as no offence has been found committed by her. The
same has been upheld by the Department of Law after scrutinising the
documents made available.
08. In this regard, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case
of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1997) 7
SCC 622, it has been held as under:-
"19. Since the validity of "sanction" depends
on the applicability of mind by the
sanctioning authority to the facts of the case
as also the material and evidence collected
during investigation, it necessarily follows,
that the sanctioning authority has to apply its
own independent mind for the generation of
genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has
to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the
sanctioning authority should not be under
pressure from any quarter nor should any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16449
4 WP-16659-2021
external force be acting upon it to take a
decision one way or the other. Since the
discretion to grant or not to grant sanction
vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority,
its discretion should be shown to have not
been affected by any extraneous
consideration. If it is shown that the
sanctioning authority was unable to apply its
independent mind for any reason whatsoever
or was under an obligation or compulsion or
constraint to grant the sanction, the order will
be bad for the reason that the discretion of the
authority "not to sanction" was taken away
and it was compelled to act mechanically to
sanction the prosecution."
09. In the aforesaid circumstances after going through the record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that it will be sheer misuse of process of
law if she is put to ordain of trial by grant of prosecution sanction. No
illegality is found in the orders of dated 23.10.2019 (Annexure P/11) &
03.10.2019 (Annexure P/12) passed by respondents No.1 & 2. Hence this
petition which is misconceived, devoid of any substance, fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
