HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12644 of 2026 Court No. - 46 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. S. Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. S. B. Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Manish Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. Ist representing State/respondents 1, 2 and 3. 2. Perused the record. 3. Mohd. Iqbal Alias Bala, the writ petitioner, has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the sanction order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Chairmain, U.P. Legislative Council in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. Mr. Manish Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate General representing State/respondents 1, 2 and 3 has raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of present writ petition. He first invited the attention of Court to the cause title of present writ petition and with reference to same, he submits that the impugned sanction order was passed by the Chairman, U.P. Legislative Council. However, the Chairman, U.P. Legislative Council has not been impleaded as a party/respondent in present writ petition. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 786, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the authority, which has passed the order and the person in whose favour, the order has been passed, are necessary and proper party to a Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Indra Bhan Yadav, Vijay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Mohd. Iqbal Alias Bala .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) writ petition. Since the authority, which has passed the impugned order, has not been impleaded as a party/respondents in present writ petition, therefore, present writ petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary and proper party. As such, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground. 5. It is then contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the prosecution' sanction was granted by the Chairman, U.P. Legislative Council by means of the impugned order dated 28.11.2024. However, the present writ petition has been filed on 16.05.2026 i.e. after an expiry of more than one year and seven months. Even though there is delay of more than one year and 7 months in filing the present writ petition but the delay in filing the present writ petition has not been sufficiently explained. It is thus urged that since present writ petition is barred by delay/laches and the same having not been sufficiently explained coupled with the fact that jurisdiction under Article 226 of is one of the equity and good conscience and delay defeats equity, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay/laches. 6. Learned Advocate General further contended that upon completion of statutory investigation of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2022 arising out of the F.I.R. dated 01.06.2022 lodged by first informant/respondent-4, Ranveer Singh, Inspector (Vigilance Establishment) 151-D Saket, Meerut, under Sections 13 (2) (B) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station, Sector (Vigilance Act), District-Meerut, the charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 193 (3) BNSS was submitted on 01.09.2025. Thereafter, the court concerned/jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance upon same vide cognizance taking order 15.09.2025. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948, the Additional Advocate General thus submits that in view of above, no jurisdiction lies with this Court to examine the veracity of the prosecution's sanction order dated 28.11.2024 impugned in present writ petition. On the above premise, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that present writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court as having rendered infructuous. CRLP No. 12644 of 2026 2 7. When confronted with above, Mr. D. S. Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. S. B. Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that by virtue of the law laid down by Apex Court in P. V. Narsimharao Vs. State (CBI)/SC (respondent) 1998 (4) SCC 626, no prosecution' sanction for an offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be granted in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, unless Section 19 C of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is amended. He, therefore, submits that in view of this legal fiction, no prosecution's sanction could have been granted under the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is patently illegal being in excess of jurisdiction. As such, the same can be quashed by this court even after cognizance has been taken by court concerned/jurisdictional magistrate. 8. We are afraid at the submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner. Whether the sanction could have been granted or not by the competent authority/concerned Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 cannot be examined by us at his stage. Since the cognizance upon police report has already been taken by the jurisdictional Magistrate/concerned Magistrate, therefore, the caution given by Apex Court in the case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni(Supra), wherein it has already held that once cognizance has been taken by the jurisdictional magistrate/concerned court then writ court dealing with the veracity of an F.I.R becomes functus officio to examine the veracity of the F.I.R. The analogy laid down by Apex Court in the Case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni(Supra), is also applicable in the present case. 9. For all the reasons given above, we are of the view that no interference is warranted by this court in present writ petition. 10. It is accordingly dismissed as having rendered infructuous. 11. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. September 28, 2026 YK CRLP No. 12644 of 2026 3 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad