The court emphasized that the validity of sanction for prosecution can be examined at any stage, including pre-trial, to ensure due process and prevent injustice.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. CRL.M.C. 4808/2019 is filed by the State against the order dated 16.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 2/16 whereby the application filed by the accused – Vikram Singh Meena under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking summoning of sanctioning authority to prove the validity of sanction and further seeking discharge on account of invalidity of sanction was partly allowed to the extent of summoning the sanctioning authority for examination on the question of validity of sanction.

2. CRL.M.C. 10017/2024 is filed by the accused – Vikram Singh Meena against the sanction order dated 05.07.2017 and seeking quashing of supplementary chargesheet in FIR NO. 345/2013 registered at Police Station Shahdara.

3. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as follows:

3.1. On 04.09.2013 a written complaint was given by one Joginder Singh stated to be engaged in the work of construction of buildings. It is alleged that in the month of February, 2013, the complainant started a construction work at Plot No. 1/5798, Plot No. 21, Gali No. 13, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and the building plan was sanctioned from MCD. It is alleged that no sooner did the complainant start the construction work than he was contacted by a Beat Constable who allegedly approached the complainant and told him that the work could not be commenced without the sanction plan and also asked the complainant to meet the SHO being the accused – Vikram Singh Meena. It is alleged that the complainant met the accused – Vikram Singh Meena along with the sanction plan who then allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh and also threatened him that he could not start the construction without giving the money. It is alleged that the complainant paid the sum of Rs. 1 lakh and started the construction work.

3.2. It is alleged that after 5 months, accused – Vikram Singh Meena again demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. It is alleged that thereafter in the month of August, 2013, accused HC Somdev visited the site and asked the complainant to stop the construction work and also told him that the building was unauthorized. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant was asked to meet the SHO/accused – Vikram Singh Meena. It is alleged that thereafter, the complainant went to the Police Station, however, the accused – Vikram Singh Meena was not present. Thereafter, the accused – Vikram Singh Meena allegedly contacted the complainant on his phone number and called him to the Police Station.

Thereafter, the accused – Vikram Singh Meena allegedly informed the complainant that the building was unauthorized, threatened to register an FIR against the complainant, and allegedly asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and meet accused HC Sumdev.

3.3. It is alleged that thereafter, the complainant purchased a video recording camera and when he was contacted by accused HC Sumdev, he recorded the said conversation on his phone, however, on that occasion the complainant did not mention about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- made by the accused – Vikram Singh Meena. It is alleged that on the second instance when the complainant was contacted, accused HC Sumdev asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as per the direction of the SHO/ accused – Vikram Singh Meena, however, the said conversation was not recorded. It is alleged that thereafter accused HC Sumdev asked the complainant to meet him. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant alongwith his friend Leelu met accused HC Sum