HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1615 of 2017 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved assailing the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Criminal Misc. Case No. Nil of 2016, Rajpal Vs. Deena Nath Mishra, whereby the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. It would be appropriate to reproduce the impugned order dated 19.10.2016:- "आदेश आवेदक के िवDZान अिधवǘा को सुना गया। संलĈन Šाथăनापś अंतगăत धारा 156 (3) दे०Š०सं० की धारा 154 (1) तथा धारा 154 (3) के Šािवधानȋ का इस Šाथăनापś की Šĥतुित के पूवă अनुपालन िकया जाना ĥपǸ ɴप से विणत नहȂ है जबिक ऐसा िकया जाना माननीय उċचतम ęयायालय DZारा ũीमती िŠयंका ũीवाĥतव तथा अęय बनाम उǥर Šदेश राčय तथा अęय, ए०आई०आर० 2015 सुŠीम कोटă, 1758 मȅ Šितपािदत िविध िसǪांतȋ के अनुसार आवģयक है। तदनुसार दं०Š०सं० की धारा 156 (3) के अंतगăत Šĥतुत Šा०पś का िविध अनुसार न होने के Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Trivedi, Ravindra Kumar Shukla, Shailesh Kumar Srivastava, Virendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate, Rajesh Kumar, Sanjay Kr. Singh Rajpal .....Applicant(s) The State Of U.P. And Ors. .....Opposite Party(s) कारण इस पर िवचार िकया जाना अपेिWत नहȂ है। यह Šकरण अंगीकरण के ĥतर पर ही तदनुसार िनĥतािरत िकया जाता है।" 4. So far as the impugned order is concerned, it does not speaks anything regarding the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, Hardoi for considering the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., neither learned counsel for the applicant is able to clarify the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, for entertaining the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the copy of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., there is a mention of allegation of corruption against the S.H.O. of Police Station-Pali and others. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 705, has categorically held that prior sanction is mandatory even at the pre-cognizance stage. It has been further laid down that a Special Judge or Magistrate cannot refer a private complaint against a public servant for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, unless the complaint is accompanied by a valid sanction order under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the absence of such sanction, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable before the Sessions Judge, Hardoi. 6. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position and the discussions made hereinabove, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. Consequently, the instant application stands rejected. December 17, 2025 Karan A482 No. 1615 of 2017 2 (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench