IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39596 of 2025 BHUPENDRA SINGH BHATI Versus SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT Appearance:

Shri Rajendra Kumar Mishra with Shri Yashpal Singh Sisodiya -

Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla This petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred for quashment of criminal proceedings registered at Crime No.211/2012, by Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Indore, District Indore against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Chief Executive Officer under the Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jati Vitt Vikas Nigam. He was posted at Bhopal in 2012, when search was conducted by the respondent at the house of applicant on 14.10.2012. The respondent registered an offence bearing no.211/2012, under Sections 13(1)(e) and

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent seized various documents, ornaments. The bank accounts of the applicant and his family members were also freezed. The respondent sought sanction to prosecute the applicant, as is mandatorily required, after almost 4 years through their memo dated 10.06.2016. The State has prescribed a detailed procedure in respect of grant of sanction. The competent authority by communication dated 24.11.2016, declined sanction to the prosecution to proceed against the applicant. Thereafter by yet another order dated 18.7.2019, the sanction for prosecution was granted against the applicant. However, after order dated 24.11.2016 whereby, sanction was refused, the applicant filed W.P.No.3025/2018, before the Principal Seat, seeking quashment of criminal proceedings on the ground of delay. Since a new order of sanction dated 18.7.2019 came into being, applicant assailed it by filing W.P. No.15660/2019, before the Principal Seat. The said W.P. was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.11.2019. Liberty was reserved to the applicant to raise all legal issues before the trial Court against the said sanction order. Applicant filed the application and raised various grounds against the sanction order. The prosecution filed its detailed reply. The Court below by impugned order dated 28.2.2020, rejected the application. This order was called in question in the first round before this Court in MCRC No.12760/2020 which was decided on 12/02/2021. This Court set aside the said order dated 28/02/2020 and directed the Court below to take a fresh decision on the application. In turn, the Court below has considered the application and passed the impugned order dated 14.09.2021, which was again challenged by the applicant by filing M.Cr.C. No.47557/2021 and the same was allowed vide order dated 01.10.2021 and the Court below was directed to hear the parties afresh and pass a fresh order in accordance with law before proceeding further. The trial Court considered the application regarding validity of sanction, again and call for the record of the employer of the applicant and examined the same. The applicant again filed M.Cr.C No.48523/2022. However, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to raise all the grounds before the competent authority. The Competent Authority allowed the application vide order dated 11/3/2025.

3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that though at present, the applicant stands discharged by the trial Court as the sanction for prosecution has been set aside with liberty to pass fresh order however the FIR still exists and, therefore, prayer for quashment of the FIR be considered. He argued that prima facie no case is made out for disproportionate property as per FIR itself on its face value. According to the prosecution case, the difference of the disproporti