ORDER

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner claiming himself to be the President of Raj Bhanu Singh Smarak

College, Manikwar, Rewa (M.P.) prays for the following reliefs :

“I) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent No.1 to grant necessary sanction for prosecution of respondent No.5 under the provisions of PC

Act and IPC in the interest of justice.

II) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble ourt may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.”

2. grant of sanction for prosecution from the competent authority i.e. respondent no.1 for initiating criminal prosecution against respondent No.5, no heed has been paid despite respondent No.5 allegedly being involved in financial irregularities. As such, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction by way of a writ of mandamus to respondent No.1/the sanctioning authority to grant sanction to prosecute respondent no.5 for alleged offenses punishable under the relevant provisions of IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Shri Baini Prasad Chansoriya Vs. The State of M.P. and others the complainant who intends filing an application u/S.156(3) of Cr.P.C. and also to be followed by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction while dealing with such an application. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below :

Anil Kumar law in respect of Section 17-A of PC Act. Pertinently, the pre- amended PC Act extended protection of sanction to public servants only once i. e. at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence by trial Court but not at pre-cognizance stage. However, the protection of sanction at the pre-cognizance stage was made available by means of purposive interpretation Anil Kumar

Section 17-A in PC Act w.e.f. 26.07.2018, protection at the pre- cognizance stage became statutorily available. Therefore, to ascertain the extent and sweep of the protection and prohibition prescribed at pre-cognizance stage by Section 17- A, the words and phrases employed therein will alone have to be looked into.

9.1 On coming into effect of Section 17-A from 26.07.2018, the statutory prohibition became operational but only against the police to conduct any enquiry/inquiry/investigation into any offence of the nature contemplated by Sec. 17-A, unless approval for doing so is obtained from authority competent to remove the accused.

9.2 Thus, the textual interpretation of Section 17A reveals in clear terms that the statutory bar to conduct enquiry/inquiry/investigation, without approval, is against

Police Officer but not against the Court.

9.3 It is thus clear that neither enquiry (informal enquiry as contemplated in para 120 (ii), (v), (vi) & (vii) of Apex Court’s Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors (supra) inquiry (formal inquiry as defined in Sec.2(g) of Cr.PC) nor investigation can be conducted by Police Officer in the absence of grant of approval by the competent authority. Therefore, on receipt of complaint, containing allegation of commission of offence under PC Act arising from allegation of “recommendation made” or “decision taken” by a public servant, a Police Officer is statutorily prohibited from conducting enquiry/inquiry/investigation unless approval is obtained from competent authority u/S. 17-A.

9.4 Importantly the statutory prohibition u/S 17-A against the Police Officer does not restrict the Special Court from entering into the realm of enquiry/inquiry which may be necessary prior to registration of offence even in the absence of approval from competent authority u/S 17-A.

9.5 However, the extent of enquiry/inquiry which a Special Court can conduct in the absence of approval is merely to achieve the object of ascertaining whether contents of Section 156(3) application prima facie reveal commission of offence of the nature contemplated u/S 17-A and punishable under PC

Act or not.

9.6 If the Special Court finds that 156(3) application revea