Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5046-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 505 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajat Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mayankar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A., who appears on behalf of State-respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. This petition has been filed with the following prayer :- "I. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Opposite Party No.2 granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner in F.I.R. No.03/2023, under Sections- 7(13)(1)(b) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Police Station- Anti Corruption Organization, Saharanpur Mandal, Saharanpur as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially posted as District Development Officer, Shamli on 02.06.2023. After his posting as District Development Officer, Shamli, the Deputy Commissioner of Rashtriya Gramin Ajivika Mission, Vikas Bhawan, Shamli (hereinafter referred to as "Mission") was transferred from his post and he was relieved on 23.06.2023 and the petitioner took officiating In-charge as Deputy Commissioner on 03.07.2023. One Bolero Jeep having registration No.UP19P4940 was engaged in the office of Deputy Commissioner of the Mission on contractual basis and its contract was due to expire on 06.12.2023 but the petitioner after being posted as Deputy Commissioner found there was no necessity of any vehicle as a regular incumbent was out of office and the petitioner was having his own vehicle, therefore, by means of an order dated 01.08.2023, the contract was cancelled. The respondent No.6- Ashwani Pawar, who owned the vehicle repeatedly made application for payment of Rs.1,42,500/- as his alleged dues. Since the vehicle was engaged in contravention of relevant Government Order and also because the respondent Nos.6 and 7 were in collusion with each other and respondent No.7 was working as Safaikarmi in the office of District Panchayat Raj Office, Shamli and was a government servant, he could not have worked also as the driver of the Bolero Jeep in question. Although the logbook shows signature of respondent No.7 as driver. 4. The petitioner tried to check such collusion between the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and the agreement of Bolero Jeep was cancelled but the private respondents became very annoyed and they tried to falsely implicate the petitioner in a conspiracy. They colluded with the junior clerk, who was working in the office of DDO and allegedly the junior clerk also demanded some money i.e. Rs.30,000/- for release of outstanding dues, the police laid a trap and clerk Akshay Kumar was caught red- handed accepting an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the respondent No.6. The police lodged the F.I.R. on 30.09.2023 bearing No.481 of 2023, under Sections 7/13 (1-B) read with 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988"). The petitioner was also made an accused and falsely implicated. He preferred a bail application which has been allowed by the Special Judge on 27.10.2023 but the petitioner has been suspended on 29.11.2023 and by means of an order dated 29.11.2023, the Chief Development Officer, Shamli has also been placed under Suspension. The said Chief Development Officer, Mr. Ranjeet Singh preferred a writ petition bearing Writ-A No.9820 of 2023 challenging his suspension order and the court granted an interim protection to him on 20.12.2023. The petitioner challenged his suspension order which writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 22.04.2024 setting up a time schedule for completion of enquiry. The petitioner suspension was revoked on 10.10.2024. However, the F.I.R. continues to be registered against him and he continues to be an accused in the false case set up by the respondents. 5. Learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions, says that chargesheet has been filed in the competent court on 03.01.2025. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the prosecution sanction has been given in violation of provision of Section 17A of Act, 1988 and the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashwant Sinha and others vs. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director and another reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338. 7. We have gone through a language of Section 17A of Act, 1988 and also its provision which has been inserted by way of amendment No.16 of 2018 w.e.f. 26.07.2018 which are quoted hereinbelow :- "17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties- (1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval - in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed: Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person: Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month." 8. From the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that after information regarding the clerk demanding money for release of contractual due was received a trap was laid out and clerk of the office of the petitioner who was then working as Deputy Commissioner was caught red- handed accepting extraneous consideration of Rs.30,000/-, the F.I.R. is detailed in nature regarding the steps taken for setting up the trap with regard to such illegal gratification accepted by Akshay Kumar. The petitioner- Rajat Yadav is co-accused No.2 in the said F.I.R. 9. We find that the case of the petitioner is covered by the first proviso Section 17A of Act, 1988 and did not fall under Section 17A of Act, 1988 as it was not relatable to him policy decision taken by the petitioner- Rajat Kumar Yadav and we, therefore, finds no good ground to interfere at this stage. 10. The writ petition is disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the court concerned, in case, he wishes to raise any challenge to the sanction granted by the State Government on any other grounds as has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sukh Lal Yadav vs. State of U.P. through Secy. Home Department : 2021 Law Suit (All) 287. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Shubhankar Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench