Allahabad High Court
Bhisham Lal Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 February, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2014 of 2022 Applicant :- Bhisham Lal Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kishore,Kuldeep Kumar Srivastava,Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Ramesh Chandra Tiwari,Siddharth Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ratnendu Kumar Singh, leaned Additional Government Advocate, representing the respondent - State, and gone through the entire file.
2. In this second petition, the reliefs sought by the petitioner reflect as under:-
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 30.04.2015, Cognizance order dated 12.06.2015 and entire proceedings of Special Case No.19/2016 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Srivastava & Others, Under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC & 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Case Crime No.1280/2012, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur pending in the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act II, Bareilly, in respect of applicant.
It will also be expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to again direct the learned court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act-II, Bareilly to decide the pending application-cum-objection dated 22.12.2020 in Special Case No.19/2016 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Srivastava & Others, Under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC & 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Case Crime No.1280/2012, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act II, Bareilly with regard to challenge the sanction order dated 30.12.2013 by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for prosecution against the applicant within the stipulated time as given by this Hon'ble Court.
It is further prayed that the further proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed till the pendency of this application before this Hon'ble Court otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
3. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by filing petition under Section 482 CrPC No.8465 of 2018 with limited prayer for quashing of the sanction order for prosecution dated 30.12.2013. The main ground was that the order, granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, was not passed by the competent authority under the Rules of Business.
4. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2020 disposed of the said petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial Court by moving an appropriate application to challenge the sanction for prosecution. In case such an application would be moved within a period of 15 days from the date of the order, the same should be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. This Court also noted the case reported in 2014 (14) SCC 295 (C.B.I. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal) to say that the trial Court is competent to examine the validity of sanction during trial and, this Court should not interfere with the validity during the stage of inquiry or pretrial stage. Once the Supreme Court itself has laid down that the validity of order for prosecution sanction should be judged at the time of inquiry or trial stage, this Court does not find that if the trial Court has not decided the application moved by the petitioner pursuant to liberty granted to him vide order dated 15.12.2020 has committed an error of law or jurisdiction.
5. In the present case, the petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet, order of cognizance and summoning order. In the earlier petition, petitioner confined his prayer only to the validity of sanction for prosecution. The accused-petitioner cannot go on challenging one-by-one the proceedings. When the earlier petition was filed, the charge-sheet was very much before the Court on which cognizance was taken against the petitioner and the petitioner was summoned. Once the petitioner was not aggrieved by the order of cognizance and summoning order, this Court does not find that at subsequent stage, once the challenge to sanction for prosecution did not succeed, the petitioner has a right to challenge the charge-sheet, order of cognizance and summoning order. Even otherwise, the counsel for the petitioner on 07.09.2022 stated before this Court that he would confine his prayer to the order on his petition regarding validity of sanction. The order dated 07.09.2022 passed by this Court in the present petition would read as under:-
" Sri Pavan Kishore, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State are present.
The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 30.04.2015, cognizance order dated 12.06.2015 and entire proceedings of Special Case No. 19/2016 State vs. Vinod Kumar Srivastava & others, Under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. & 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Case Crime No. 1280/2012, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act II, Bareilly, in respect of applicant.
It will also be expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to gain direct the learned court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Act-II, Bareilly to decide the pending application-cum-objection dated 22.12.2020 in Special Case No. 19/2016 State vs. Vinod Kumar Srivastava & others, Under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. & 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Case Crime No. 1280/2012, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act II, Bareilly with regard to challenging the sanction order dated 30.12.2013 by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for prosecution against the applicant within the stipulated time as given by this Hon'ble Court.
It is further prayed that the further proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed till the pendency of this application before this Hon'ble Court otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
Learned counsel for the applicant at the outset states that in so far as the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet, order of cognizance and the entire proceedings are concerned, he does not press the same. He states that in compliance of an order of Lucknow Bench of this Court an application / objection dated 22.12.2020 has been filed before the trial court by the applicant which is pending.
On a probe to him as to after filing of the said application what transpired before the trial court, he states that he has not filed the order-sheet of the trial court and he may be granted two weeks time for the same.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 30.09.2022."
6. In view thereof, earlier the petitioner did not challenge the charge-sheet, order of cognizance and summoning order, though he approached this Court and cause of action was available to him, subsequent petition, challenging the charge-sheet, order of cognizance and summoning order would not be maintainable and, thus, this petition, so far as the challenge is to the charge-sheet, cognizance order and summoning order is concerned, is hereby dismissed. However, in respect of validity of the order for prosecution sanction, it is observed that the trial Court should decide the issue at an appropriate stage during trial. The trial is going on wherein PW-1 is said to have been examined. The trial Court should make every endeavour to expedite the trial proceedings and conclude the same, preferably within a period of one year from the date certified copy of this order is served. It is said that the petitioner is going to retire within one and a half years and, therefore, the trial Court should not adjourn the trial proceedings unless it is so required under the compelling circumstances.
[D.K. SINGH, J.] Order Date :- 20.2.2023 MVS/-