1 2025:CGHC:15601-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1178 of 2025 Shri V Srinivas S/o Shri V.V. H. Subbarao Aged About 55 Years R/o Db 20/77 G M Complex Chirmiri (C.G.) Permanent R/o Sang Nagar Post Vijaywada, P.S. Vijaywad District - Krishna (Andhra Pradesh ) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Economic Offences Wing And Anti Corruption Bureau Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ankit Mishra S/o Shyam Sundar Mishra Aged About 33 Years R/o In Front Of Water Atm Aamakherva Road Manendragarh District - Mcb (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Pandey with Mr. Vikyat Arora, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.04.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.03 14:46:11 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Aman Pandey with Mr. Vikyat Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 / State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to set aside and quash order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) in Special Criminal Case No. 01 of 2025 and chargesheet dated 15.01.2025 bearing No. 02 of 2025 filed by the Respondent No.1 in relation to commission of alleged offence under Section 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the present Petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been registered against co-accused, Sanjay Kumar Singh who is Assistant Engineer in SECL and the present petitioner, against whom, though it is stated in the FIR that he is PA of General Manager, whereas, as per the letter of SECL, he is only a postal clerk. He further submits that in the present case, the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the co- accused person who has previous enmity with the petitioner. It is submitted that the aforesaid factum is also established by the letter issued by the SECL whereby it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner has no role to play in the present crime. The SECL sent a letter dated 06.03.2025 in response to the letter dated 09.01.2025 issued by the Respondent No.1 wherein, it was specifically mentioned that since there is no prima facie case against the petitioner, approval and consent was 3 given for prosecution of the co-accused person however, the same was denied so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Later, while taking cognizance of the offence in question, the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the demand of money is not alleged against the petitioner which is a pre-requisite for initiating proceedings under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, however, in the present case, as per the story of the prosecution also, no demand was made by the petitioner. The learned trial Court without considering the sanction letter issued by the SECL, has taken cognizance against the petitioner and further the case is fixed for framing for charges tomorrow i.e. on 04.04.2025. 4. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate submits that since the cognizance has already been taken by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and matter is fixed for framing of charges, in view of the same, no interference is sought for in the present petition. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by the learned trial Court concerned without taking into consideration the sanction letter issued by the SECL on 06.03.2025, by which the competent authority has refrained to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner and further the case is fixed for framing of charges on 04.04.2025, in view of the same, the present petition stands disposed off, with liberty to the petitioner that he shall appear before the learned trial Court and make his submissions and 4 pleadings and the trial Court concerned shall take into consideration those submissions/pleadings and only thereafter, proceed with the framing of charges, so far as the petitioner is concerned. 6. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned, forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 7. Certified copy, today. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet