ORDER :

The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is,

Whether the presentation of a fresh complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. is barred on account of quashing of the earlier complaint filed against respondent No.2/public servant for want of sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

2. The outline facts necessary to answer the above question are that the petitioner herein filed a complaint under sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C., seeking action against the respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 418, 465, 468, 471 read with 120B of IPC and sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The allegations against the respondents were that the respondents entered into a criminal conspiracy and forged documents purported to have been issued by the petitioner / complainant seeking to withdraw the approval granted by the High Level Clearance Committee for allotment of 26 acres of land to the complainant at Devanahalli Industrial Area, Bengaluru Rural District.

4. At the first instance, the complaint filed by the petitioner was registered in PCR.No.25/2012 and the same was referred for investigation by the S.P. Lokayukta, Bengaluru, under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by order dated 21.05.2012. Based on this order, FIR in Crime No.49/2012 was registered against the respondents. After investigation, Lokayukta Police submitted a final report in Spl.C.C.No.142/2013. Respondent No.2 challenged the said report in Criminal Petition No.4497/2013 and this court vide order dated 11.10.2013 quashed PCR.No.25/2012 in its entirety for the reason that the complaint was not accompanied by a valid order of sanction from the competent authority.

5. After the respondents demitted the office which they were holding on the date of commission of the alleged offence, petitioner presented a fresh complaint. It was numbered as PCR No.32/2014.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents having demitted the office which they were holding on the date of commission of alleged offences, sanction for prosecution of the respondents was not necessary in view of the ruling rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.S.NAYAK vs. A.R.ANTULAY, (1984) 2 SCC 183 and ABHAY SINGH CHAUTALA vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, (2011) 7 SCC 141. This plea was resisted by the respondents and by the impugned order dated 26.08.2016, learned Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru dismissed the complaint, reserving liberty to the petitioner / complainant to approach the court after getting prior sanction from the competent authority.

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri.A.P.Mohanty and learned Senior Counsel Sri.C.V.Nagesh on behalf of Smt.Sanjanthi Sajan Poovayya and Sri.Sandeep Patil, learned counsels for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 and Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri.Manmohan P.N., learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri. Aravind V. Chavan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner / complainant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF MIZORAM vs. C.SANGNGHINA, (2019) 13 SCC 335 and would submit that the complaint having been dismissed at the first instance for lack of proper sanction, there is no bar for filing a fresh complaint as sanction for prosecution of the respondents is not necessary on account of the respondents demitting the office which was abused by them during the commission of the alleged offences.

8. Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 however would submit that the order passed by this court in Criminal Petition No.4497/2013 having attained finality, no fresh complaint is tenable without production of the fresh sanction as ordered by this court and hence, no fault could be found with the order passed by the learned Special Judge.

9. Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appeari