IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

&

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI

ON THE 15^th OF JANUARY, 2026

MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.5062 of 2024

PRADEEP CHAUDHARY

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH SPECIAL POLICE

ESTABLISHMENT, LOKAYUKTA OFFICE, BHOPAL

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance :

Ms. Shobha Menon – Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Choubey for the

petitioner.

Shri Abhinav Shrivastava – Advocate for the respondent No.1/S.P.E.

Lokayukta.

Shri Shivendra Pandey – Advocate for the respondent

No.4/Complainant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 17/12/2025 Pronounced on : 15/01/2026

O R D E R

By way of this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure (in short, ‘CrPC’), the petitioner is seeking quashment of the charge-sheet No.81/2022 dated 10.09.2022 whereby he has been

implicated in criminal proceeding under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘PC Act’) read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the sanction for prosecution order dated 21.03.2022 was issued by incompetent authority i.e. Joint Director, whose post was equivalent to the petitioner and there was no material on record that the competent authority of the petitioner i.e. Managing Director, had applied its mind for grant of sanction and further, the petitioner is also assailing the order dated 29.11.2023 whereby the Court below has rejected his application under Section 227 of the CrPC for discharge of consequential order of framing of charges under Section 13(1)

(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to the institution of the present criminal case is as under :-

(i) The petitioner vide order dated 15.06.2012 came to be posted as Additional General Manager, Bhopal, a class-I post, in the Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘MPMKVVCL’) and served as such until his retirement on 30.04.2020.

(ii) The disciplinary power to remove the petitioner from the services on the post held by him i.e. Additional General Manager, vests with the Managing Director of MPMKVVCL.

(iii) On the basis of a complaint that petitioner is allegedly in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.70 crores, which was disproportionate to his known source of income and a Crime No.340/2014 came to be registered against the petitioner under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act and an F.I.R. was registered on 25.07.2014.

(iv) Thereafter, a Final Report/charge-sheet dated 10.09.2022 was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner succinctly submits that insofar as Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 is concerned, it categorically postulates that no Court shall take cognizance of offence punishable under sections referred to therein committed by public servant except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove him from his office and in the present case, as referred to above and is explicit from the document Annexure A/1, it is the Managing Director who alone could have granted sanction for prosecution. It is also submitted that Joint Director is a class-I post likewise present petitioner, therefore, the sanction granted by him would amount to the sanction granted by the incompetent authority. It is further submitted that the word ‘removal’ carries a great significance inasmuch as it results in cessation of inter-relation between the office and abuse by the holder of the office. The link between the power with opportunity to abuse and the holder of office would be severed by removal from office and also in the catena of decisions rendered by Apex Court, it has been held that the authority entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to the facts of the case, ev