# Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of U.P.& Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 179
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-11
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No. 28862 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-kumar-chaturvedi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44928
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - Sanction u/s 19 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act held
mandatory - The cognizance of the offence
which has been taken by the trial court,
appears
to
be
in
violation
of
the
established principle of law as laid down in
Anil Kumar Vs. N. K. Aiyappa without the
complainant having obtained the sanction
from
the
appropriate
authority,
the
accused-applicant being a Government
Servant.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C allowed. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

4 All. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
179
which enable to win over the witness or may
disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately
resulting in miscarriage of Justice". In again
another subsequent Monica Kumar v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, the
Apex Court has propounded "Inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution
and only when such exercise is justified by the
tests specifically laid down in the section
itself." While interpreting this jurisdiction of
High Court Apex Court in Popular Muthiah
v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police,
(2006) 7 SCC 296 has propounded "High
Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in
the interest of justice. It can do so while
exercising
other
jurisdictions
such
as
appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal
application for invoking inherent jurisdiction
is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be
exercised in respect of substantive as well as
procedural matters. It can as well be exercised
in respect of incidental or supplemental power
irrespective of nature of proceedings".

8. Regarding prevention of abuse of
process
of
Court, Apex
Court
in
Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar,
(1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC
494 has propounded "To prevent abuse of
the process of the Court, High Court in
exercise of its inherent powers under
section 482 could quash the proceedings
but there would be justification for
interference only when the complaint did
not disclose any offence or was frivolous
vexatious or oppressive" as well as in
State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan,
(1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1,
Apex Court propounded "In exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court
would not embark upon an enquiry
whether the allegations in the complaint
are likely to be established by evidence or
not".
9. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within
the limits, propounded as above.

10. In view of what has been
discussed above, this Application, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being devoid of
merits, dismissed.

11. However, it is directed that if the
applicants appear and surrender before the
court below within 30 days from today
and apply for bail, their prayer for bail
shall be considered and decided in view
of the settled law laid by this Court in the
case of Amrawati and another Vs. State
of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322
(SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs.
State of U.P.

12. For a period of 30 days from today,
no coercive action shall be taken against the
applicants. However, in case, the applicants
do not appear before the Court below within
the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be
taken against them.
----------

(2019)12 ILR A179

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J

Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No.
28862 of 2014

Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.& Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Rajesh Pathik, Sri Aditya Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Pradeep Kumar VI

A. Criminal Law - The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - Sanction u/s 19 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act held
mandatory - The cognizance of the offence
which has been taken by the trial court,
appears
to
be
in
violation
of
the
established principle of law as laid down in
Anil Kumar Vs. N. K. Aiyappa without the
complainant having obtained the sanction
from
the
appropriate
authority,
the
accused-applicant being a Government
Servant.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C allowed. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

1. Subramanyam Swami Vs. Manmohan Singh
& ors. 2012 1 SCC (Crl.) 1041

2. Anil Kumar Vs. N. K. Aiyappa 2014 (84) ACC
695 SC

3. Nanhe Lal & ors. Vs. St. of U.P. 2014 (84)
ACC 944

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri S. K.
Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. None appeared from the side of
Opposite
Party
No.
2,
although
Vakalatnama has been traced out by the
office and has been placed on record.

3. This Application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer
to quash the impugned order dated
21.07.2014 passed in Complaint (Special)
Case No. 2 of 2013 (Puran Prasad Gupta
Vs. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi) pending
before
Additional
Session
Court-I,
Maharajganj as well as prayer is made to
stay the further proceedings of the above
said case.

4. In order to understand the dispute
involved in this case, it would be
appropriate to give in brief facts of the
case, which are as follows:

An Application under 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was moved by Opposite Party No.
2/complainant of this case Puran Prasad
Gupta stating therein that he had applied
for a loan of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-
by Poorwanchal Gramin Bank, Branch
Nichlaul on 01.05.2012, which was to be
sanctioned
under
"Mukhyamantri
Gramodoyog
Rojgar
Yojna".
After
sanction of loan file of the same was
made available to the accused-applicant
on 25.05.2012. At the instance of the
accused,
Chartered
Accountant
had
submitted project report and the valuation
of the residential plot of the guarantor was
also made available on the basis of
registered deed by the Engineer. Tehsildar
had also made evaluation. Necessary
documents were also prepared by the
authorized advocate of the Bank and for
completing
all
these
formalities
approximately an amount of Rs. 15,000/-
was spent by Opposite Party No. 2 apart
from Rs. 5,000/- which were also spent by
the Opposite Party No. 2 on other
expenditure. After having completed all
the formalities when the Opposite Party
No. 2 sought information from the
Assistant
Branch
Manager
of
Poorwanchal
Gramin
Bank,
Branch
Nichlaul, he made him run again and
again on one pretext or the other and
ultimately, on 04.09.2012, he demanded
10 % of the sanctioned loan amount
4 All. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
181
before he would release the funds which
were sanctioned as loan. At this, the
Opposite Party No. 2 asked him to
provide him the receipt of the said amount
pursuant to which he had promised to pay
the 10% amount but it was told by the
applicant that he would not be able to give
the said amount of loan without the
payment of the 10% of sanctioned loan
amount. This act of the applicant was
covered in corrupt practices and hence he
was told that he would make a complaint
against him in this regard. Thereafter, the
applicant refused, left the place after
abusing the Opposite Party No. 2 in a
huff/anger and gave threat that he would
get him implicated in false case of loot. A
complaint was given to higher authorities
against the applicant but to no avail. An
application was also given at the police
station concerned but nothing was done.
Hence, a registered complaint was sent to
the Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj
on 23.01.2013 but even then no action
was
taken.
The
present
case
was
registered by the trial court as a complaint
case as Special Case No. 2 of 2013. After
its registration, the statement of the
complainant was recorded under Section
200 Cr.P.C. on 06.06.2013 in which the
said facts have been narrated as were
mentioned in the complaint and in support
of his case, the Opposite Party No. 2 got
examined two other witnesses also under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. namely Sudhanshu
Tiwari S/o late Jagdish Narayan and
Govind Kumar S/o Ram Avtar and both
of them have supported the version of the
complainant to the effect that the
applicant
was
asking
10%
of
the
sanctioned loan amount from Opposite
Party No. 2 for release of amount of loan
by way of commission and when the same
was not given then it was told that a
complaint would be made against him.
The accused left the place in a great anger
abusing the Opposite Party No. 2 and also
threatening that he would implicate the
Opposite Party No. 2/complainant in a
false case.

5. In the present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. the order dated
21.07.2014 has been assailed whereby
application
47-Kha
moved
by
the
accused-applicant has been rejected in
which it was mentioned that the accused
was summoned under Section 7 & 13 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, for
which cognizance could not have been
taken against him unless sanction to
prosecute him had been taken from the
competent authority as per the provisions
of Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and therefore he had
sought to be discharged under Section 245
(2) Cr.P.C. The said application was
dismissed by the said impugned order.

6. In the impugned order it is
mentioned that against the said application
47-kha, the complainant/Opposite Party No.
2 had filed an objection stating that
cognizance had already been taken on the
complaint moved by him and against the
summoning order writ petition was preferred
by the accused-applicant, which
was
dismissed upholding the summoning order. It
is further mentioned in the impugned order
that from the side of the accused- applicant it
was argued that without proper sanction to
prosecute him, given by the competent
authority, no prosecution can be initiated
against the applicant and hence he should be
discharged under the provisions of 245 (2)
Cr.P.C.

7. Reliance was placed upon three
judgments i.e. (i) Subramanyam Swami
Vs. Manmohan Singh and others 2012
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1 SCC (Crl.) 1041; (ii) Anil Kumar Vs.
N. K. Aiyappa 2014 (84) ACC 695 SC;
and (iii) Nanhe Lal and others Vs. State
of U.P. 2014 (84) ACC 944 Allahabad
High Court.

8. After consideration the above said
judgments, the trial court had recorded in
the impugned order that after having
taken into consideration the statement of
the complainant and two other witnesses
under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., a
prima-facie case was found to have been
made out under the above mentioned
Sections against the accused-applicant
and he was summoned to face trial for
those offences, against which a revision
had been preferred before the High Court
and even revision was dismissed and
summoning order was found to be rightly
passed. It is further mentioned that earlier
an application was also moved by the
applicant under 245 (2) Cr.P.C. for
discharge
but
even
that
was
also
dismissed
vide
order
15.02.2014,
therefore, in these circumstances, the
present application 245(2) Cr.P.C. for
being discharged on a new ground, cannot
be disposed of and accordingly dismissed
the same.

09. In the affidavit in support of the
application it is mentioned by the
applicant that earlier a Criminal Misc.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
was preferred by the applicant against the
order
dated
16.12.2013
which
was
numbered Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
as
1205/14
(Vijay
Kumar
Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. and another)
which was disposed of vide order dated
15.01.2014 with the direction that the
applicant
shall
move
discharge
application through counsel within 30
days before the court concerned and for a
period of 30 days no coercive action was
directed to be taken against him in the
said Special Case No. 2 of 2013 pending
before the Trial Court.

10. In compliance of the said order
discharge application was moved by him,
which was rejected vide order dated
15.02.2014 against which a Criminal
Revision No. 635 of 2014 (Vijay Kumar
Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P.) was filed
before the High Court which was also
rejected summarily vide order dated
25.03.2014 without hearing the arguments
of the counsel for the applicant which is
annexed as annexure no. 2. Further it is
mentioned that the applicant/his counsel
were not aware as to whether the sanction
to prosecute the applicant was taken under
Section
19
of
the
Prevention
of
Corruption Act or not. Therefore, the said
point could not be raised earlier while
moving application No. 1205 of 2014 or
in Criminal Revision No. 635 of 2014. It
is settled law that for fresh cause of action
an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
can be filed by aggrieved person to
prevent abuse of process of Court and to
secure the ends of justice, hence, present
application has been moved.

11. The case of the applicant is
squarely
covered
by
judgment
of
Subramanyam Swami (Supra) and Anil
Kumar (Supra) as well as Judgment in
Nanhe Lal (Supra) and the trial court has
not made appropriate interpretation of
those judgments and has erroneously
passed the impugned order rejecting the
application of the accused-applicant.
Further it is mentioned that the applicant
is not empowered to grant loan under the
Scheme of Pradhanmantri Gramodyog
Yojna because the applicant had not even
the target given by the Regional Office
4 All. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
183
and in support thereof he has enclosed a
list
sent
by
the
Regional
Office
Poorvanchal
Bank
dated
12.07.2012
which is annexed as annexure no. 5. In
absence of the target, the applicant
returned the loan application of Opposite
Party No. 2 to Zila Gramodyog Adhikari,
Maharajganj twice, first on 24.09.2012
and thereafter on 16.12.2012, true copies
of the orders are annexed to the affidavit
as annexure 6-A and 6-B.

12. The applicant is a Senior Bank
Officer working as Senior Assistant
Manager (Advance) in Poorvanchal Bank
and has unblemished record of last 37
years of service. The Opposite Party No.
2 is a local press reporter of Hindustan
newspaper who after his application was
returned, tried to blackmail the applicant
and has filed false complaint. Firstly, he
had moved District Consumer Forum,
Maharajganj before which his application
was rejected on 11.09.2013, copy of order
is annexed as annnexure no. 7 to the
affidavit. After losing the case there, he
filed the present false complaint which
was
registered
as
Special
Case
(complaint) no. 2 of 2013 which is
nothing but an abuse of process of court
and deserves to be quashed as in absence
of sanction to prosecute under Section 19
of the Prevention of the Corruption Act
by the competent authority, he cannot be
relegated to of disadvantageous position
to face prosecution. Hence, the impugned
order dated 21.07.2011 needs to be setaside along with entire proceedings in
complaint case.

13. From the side of Opposite Party
No. 2, in rebuttal, it appears that no
Counter-Affidavit
has
been
filed,
however, from the side of learned A.G.A.
Counter-Affidavit has been filed in which
it is mentioned that the present case is
arising out of a complaint case, hence, the
police has nothing to do with the same.

14. Reliance has been placed by the
learned counsel for the applicant on
Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan
Singh 2012 1 SCC (Crl.) 1041. In this
case it has been held that there is no
provision either in P.C. Act 1988 or in
Cr.P.C. which bars a citizen from filing a
complaint for prosecution of a Public
Servant who is alleged to have committed
an offence. The appellant, a private
citizen, has a right to file a complaint for
prosecution of respondent no. 2 being a
cabinet
minister in respect of the
commission of offence committed by the
respondent no. 2 under the 1988 Act. It is
further held in this case that in paragraph
58 of the judgment of Vineet Narain's
case (1998) 1 SCC 326, the Supreme
Court gave several directions in relation
to C.B.I., the C.V.C, and Enforcement
Directorate.
In
para
58(I)(15),
the
Supreme Court gave following directions:

"58.(I)(15): Time-limit of three
months
for
grant
of
sanction
for
prosecution must be strictly adhered to.
However, additional time of one month
may be allowed where consultation is
required with the Attorney General (A.G.)
or any other Law Officer in the A.G.'s
Office."

In
future,
every
competent
authority shall take appropriate action on
the representation made by a citizen for
sanction of the prosecution of a public
Servant strictly in accordance with the
direction contained in Vineet Narain's
case (Supra) and the guidelines framed by
the
C.V.C.
Sanction
Prosecution
Guidelines, 2005.
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. The above citations which has
been relied upon by the learned counsel
for the applicant clearly laid down that
every citizen of the country has a right to
make a complaint if he comes across a
Government Servant who indulged in
corruption and that if any such complaint
is moved against him there is time limit
prescribed for grant of sanction to
prosecute him as laid down in Vineet
Narayan's case (Supra).

16. The argument of the learned
counsel for the applicant is that since the
applicant in the present case is a Branch
Manager of the Pooranchal Gramin Bank,
who is qualifying to be treated a
Government Servant and therefore before
initiating his prosecution it was essential
to seek prior approval for his prosecution
from the appropriate authority which has
not been taken in the present case by the
Opposite Party No. 2. Hence, preliminary
proceedings against him need to be
quashed.

17. Reliance has been placed by the
learned counsel for the applicant on Anil
Kumar Vs. M. K. Aiyappa 2014 (84)
ACC 695 SC. in In this case, the
appellant filed a private complaint against
the first respondent, a public Servant,
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging
commission of offence punishable under
Section 406, 409, 420, 426, 463, 465, 468,
471, 474 read with Section 120-B and
Section 149 of I.P.C. and Section 8,
13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e), 13(2) read
with Section 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.

18. On receipt of this complaint, the
Special
Judge
for
Prevention
of
Corruption passed an order referring the
matter for investigation to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Lokaayukt, in
exercise of his powers under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C.. The High Court in a Writ
Petition filed by the first respondent
quashed the order passed by the Special
Judge as well as the complaint on the
ground that the Special Judge could not
have taken notice of the private complaint
against a public Servant unless the same
was accompanied by a sanction order
against a public Servant under Section
19(1) of the P.C. Act, whether the Court
was acting at a pre-cognizance stage or a
post-cognizance stage. Aggrieved by the
same the, complainant had filed the
present appeal, dismissing the appeal, the
Supreme
Court
held
that
where
jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint
filed in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or
Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is
required to apply his mind, and in such a
case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot
refer the matter under Section 156(3) for
investigation against a public Servant
without a valid sanctioned order under
Section 19(1) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988. The application of
mind by the Magistrate should be
reflected in the order. The mere statement
that he has gone through the complaint,
documents, and heard the complainant, as
such, as reflected in the order, will not be
sufficient.
After
going
through
the
complaint, documents and hearing the
complainant, what weighed with the
Magistrate to order investigation under
Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C.,
should
be
reflected in the order, though a detailed
expression of his views is neither required
nor
warranted.
The
Special
Judge/Magistrate in the present case, has
stated no reasoning for ordering further
investigation. It is apparent from the
above citation that in a complaint case
where the trial court takes cognizance of
the offence under the procedure of
4 All. Shankar Prasad Agrahari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
185
complaint case and records statement
under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would be
mandatory
before
taking
cognizance
against
the
accused
to
seek
prior
prosecution
sanction.
It
would
be
appropriate for the complainant to seek
prior permission for prosecution of the
public
Servant
without
such
prior
permission from the competent authority
no cognizance on the said complaint can
be taken by the court.

19. In the present case, I find that
the applicant being Assistant Branch
Manager of Poorvanchal Gramin Bank
has been stated to have demanded 10% of
the amount of sanctioned loan from the
Opposite Party no. 2 before he would
release the same, which was refused to be
given, hence the complainant moved the
present complaint. It is apparent that the
Opposite Party no. 2 ought to have sought
the sanction to prosecute the accusedapplicant
from
appropriate
authority
before moving the complaint before the
trial court. Apparently, it appears that the
cognizance of the offence which has been
taken in this matter by the trial court,
appears to be in violation of the
established principle of law as laid down
in Anil Kumar (supra) that in this case
of
alleged
corruption,
in
which
summoning order has been passed under
Section 7 and 13 of the Corruption Act,
the cognizance has been taken by the trial
court without the complainant having
obtained the sanction from the appropriate
authority, the accused-applicant being a
Government Servant.

20. As regards the fact that the
accused-applicant has already approached
this Court twice earlier and each time his
application was rejected, who initially
approached this Court by preferring
application No. 1205 of 2014 in which he
was directed to appear before the trial
court to seek discharge but his application
has been rejected and thereafter, he
approached this court in Revision No. 635
of 2014 but the same was also summarily
rejected, in each of above mentioned two
orders, the present point of prosecution
sanction not having been obtained against
the accused-applicant, had not been taken
into consideration which to me appears to
be mandatory in the present case. In view
of the above, I am of the view, the
impugned
order
along
with
the
summoning order in the present case
deserve to be quashed with liberty to the
complainant to approach the Court again
after having obtained prior sanction to
prosecute the applicant from appropriate
authority.

The present Application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be
allowed and is accordingly, allowed.
----------

(2019)12 ILR A185

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No.
36324 of 2019

Shankar Prasad Agrahari ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.& Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kamal Dev Singh Chanchal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.