[2026:RJ-JP:13876] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 661/2020 Rajesh Verma S/o Shri Devi Prasad Verma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 38 New Laxmi Nagar Hiran Magri Sector-8 Udaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Department Of Personnel Secretariat Jaipur 2. Joint Secretary/Deputy Secretary, Department Of Personnel Govt. Of Raj. Secretariat Jaipur 3. Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau Jhalana Institutional Area Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Thakur for Mr. Abhishek Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Yashwant Singh for Mr. Archit Bohra JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/04/2026 1. The instant petition has been preferred with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition, call for the entire record of the case and; (i) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pass an appropriate writ, order or dictation and may kindly direct the respondents to not to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioner. (ii) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and other relevant facts and material presented by his relatives, before finally concluding in relation to prosecution sanction. [2026:RJ-JP:13876] (2 of 2) [CRLW-661/2020] (iii) Any prejudicial order to the interest of the petitioner, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and be pleased to quashed and set aside. (iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may consider just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (v) The cost of the writ petition may be quantified in favour of the petitioner.” 2. By way of filing the instant petition, a prayer has been made for issuing the directions to the respondent-authorities to not grant sanction of prosecution against the petitioner and consider his representation along with the relevant material before passing appropriate orders for prosecution sanction. 3. At the outset learned Public Prosecutor apprised this Court that the Concerned Department has already issued order of prosecution sanction on 08.11.2016. 4. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view the relief sought for cannot be granted as the sanction order has already been passed against the petitioner to prosecute him. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he is at liberty to assail the same before the appropriate forum of law. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Shivam-Puneet/45