Repeated litigation on issues already settled by the court constitutes an abuse of process, reinforcing the validity of prior rulings on matters like sanction for prosecution.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) To set aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2017 passed by Ms. Shadab Bano, Ld. Spl. Judge CBI at Dehradoon due to ‘absence of sanction’ in this case, in the interest of Justice.

(ii) To drop the proceedings of the trial in the above case due to ‘absence of sanction’, in the interest of Justice.

(iii) To stay the further proceedings of the CBI Case No.12/2010, during the pendency of the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application.”

(iv) Pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice, in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Before appreciating the arguments, it would be apt to recapitulate the history of this litigation. This case has come up before this Court, on the question of sanction for the third time.

3. A charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner in RC 16(A)/2005-SCR, New Delhi dated 02.08.2005 under section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, which is the basis for institution of CBI Case No.12 of 2010, CBI Vs. Swetabh Suman and others, in the court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI), Dehradun. (It is hereinafter referred to as ‘the criminal case’)

4. Initially when the charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken, a criminal misc. application no. 1166 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner, raising various issues relating to cognizance as well as sanction to prosecute. This Court vide order dated 04.04.2011 decided the petition. Insofar as the issue of valid sanction is concerned, the court observed and held as hereunder:-

“2. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, admittedly, there is sanction to prosecute. Applicant contends that the Hon’ble Finance Minister, who is in- charge of the Department, by making an endorsement in the file, has expressed reservation pertaining to grant of sanction to prosecute until the queries made in the endorsement are looked into. It is stated that since those have not been done, there is no valid sanction to prosecute. Since the sanction to prosecute has been issued by the person competent to issue the same, if the same is in violation of any direction issued by the Hon’ble Finance Minister, it is open to the Hon’ble Finance Minister to take such recourse to law as is available to him but to the world at large sanction having been accorded by the person competent to accord the same should be treated to be a valid sanction.”

5. With regard to cognizance order, the Court in its order dated 04.04.2011, interalia, observed that:

“3………………..The Code says, only when discharge is not granted, Magistrate is competent to frame charge. In the circumstances, what the applicant is seeking from this Court, he is entitled to seek from the Magistrate. It would not be proper, in view of the legislative mandate, for this Court to do what the Legislature has asked the magistrate to do at the first instance. It would be appropriate, therefore, for the applicant to seek discharge from the Magistrate. In the event, applicant is not discharged and he has grievance for not having been discharged, it shall be open to him to take such recourse to law, including re-approaching his Court………….”

6. The petitioner again filed an application 952-B in the criminal case raising further the issue regarding sanction. This application 952-B was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 19.11.2016. This order dated 19.11.2016 was challenged by the petitioner in criminal misc. application no. 70 of 2017, which was rejected and in very strong words, the Court held that this is abuse of process of law because the question of sanction had