[2025:RJ-JP:45598] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1472/2025 Deepak Raghuvanshi S/o Shri Uma Shankar, aged about 36 years, R/o Gopalpura, Police Station Mandana, District Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Addl. S.P., Anti Corruption Bureau, Baran (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to FIR No.44/2021 registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur at ACB Chowki, Kota, the prosecution agency applied for grant of prosecution sanction, which has been denied for the offences as mentioned in order dated 07.10.2024, however, despite there being denial of sanction, charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecution agency against the petitioner also and the matter has been kept by the trial Court for considering the arguments on cognizance, which would prejudice the rights of the petitioner and would cause miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:45598] (2 of 2) [CRLW-1472/2025] 2. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the instant petition and submitted that at this stage, the petitioner is totally pre- mature, as of now, no order whatsoever has been passed by learned Court below and the Court is yet to apply its mind over the question as to whether cognizance is to be taken against the petitioner or not. 3. Heard and considered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any prohibition under law in filing charge-sheet without there being any prosecution sanction, and admittedly the matter is under consideration of the trial Court on the question of cognizance. 5. Order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the trial Court would reveal that the fact that prosecution sanction has been denied against the petitioner is already on record of the trial Court. Thus, under these circumstances, where trial Court has yet to apply its mind on the question of taking cognizance, no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner to file the instant petition and the same is hereby dismissed as being pre-mature. 6. Petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse, in case, cognizance is taken against him. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /22