Court No. – 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 24591 of 2013
Petitioner :- Dr. Vijay Narain Pathak
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Sharma,R.P.Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon’ble Surendra Singh,J.
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought relief in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.4.2013 passed by
the respondent no.1 whereby sanction was accorded to prosecute the
petitioner and the ancillary prayer was also made in the nature of mandamus
restraining the respondents from taking any coercive measures against the
petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 11.4.2013.
The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the petitioner was working as Chief
Medical Officer in Allahabad during the year 2005 to 2008 and is now posted
as Senior Consultant at District Hospital Fatehpur. A first information report
was lodged by Prakash Rai vide Case Crime No. 128 of 2011 under sections
120B/218/420/467/468/471 IPC read with section 13 (1) (d) and (2) of
Prevention of Corruption Ac t 1988 at the police station Cantt. Allahabad on
16.7.2011 . The first information report was lodged for issuance of a
certificate of registration to Praveen Chandra under Rule 6 of Preconception
& Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection ) Rules 1996
which shall here-in-after in brevity be referred to as Rules 1966 for running
Ultra Sound Clinic in the name of Sai Kripa Chandra Diagnostic Centre
19G/11 Kamala Nehru Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad on the basis of forged
certificates submitted by him.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the
petitioner has not surfaced in the first information report . The petitioner was
not instrumental in getting Ultra Sound Diagnostic Centre registered in favour
of Naveen Chandra Srivastava under Rules 1996. The documents if any
submitted by Naveen Chandra Srivastava for the establishment of the Clinic
was required to be submitted on an affidavit hence the person who has
submitted the affidavit is solely responsible for any fraud & forgery .
Moreover, no enquiry or verification of the document was ever done in
respect of the registration . The petitioner has discharged his duties in a
bonafide manner . There is no allegation on the basis of which the petitioner
can be held liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the Penal
Code. The petitioner has neither committed any cheating nor fabricated any
forged documents hence the order according sanction for prosecution of the
petitioner under section 197 Cr.P.C. is untenable in the eyes of law. The
petitioner has challenged the first information report before this Hon’ble Court
by means of Criminal Misc. Writ petition No. 20878 of 2013 (Dr. Vijay
Narain Pathak Vs. State and others) and the aforesaid writ petition was
dismissed on the ground of issuance of sanction order dated 11.4.2013 by the
Per contra learned AGA contradicted the averments made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner contending that the order was passed by the
competent statutory authority on 11.4.2013 which was within the knowledge
of the petitioner . When the writ petition was pending before this Hon’ble
Court, the petitioner has filed sanction order in the aforesaid petition and the
writ petition was dismissed holding that the sanction has been obtained after
collecting material evidence therefore, the sanction to prosecute the petitioner
has attained finality .
We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties.
From the bald perusal of the impugned order, it emerges that the impugned
order has been passed on the basis of relevant materials viz. statement of
witnesses who had produced the reports before the competent authority hence
the impugned order cannot be thwarted at the primitive stage without
adjudging its gravity and seriousness. It has not been brought to the notice of
the court that after sanction whether the competent court has entertained the
matter and issued summons while challenging the sanction order in the instant
petition, it is specifically averred that the petitioner was not having knowledge
of passing of the impugned order due to which there is slight delay in filing
the writ petition whereas the petitioner has filed the affidavit in writ petition
no. 20878 of 2013 along with sanctioned order passed by the Government
dated 11.4.2013 and was conceded that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner
has been accorded.hence it is apparent that all the material facts have not been
divulged in the petition. Section 19 (3) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988 puts a complete embargo on the court to grant stay of the
proceedings, which reads as under :-
(b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any
error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority ,unless
it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in failure of
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought forth any cogent &
convincing material to manifest any infirmity or vulnerability of the order
impugned. No latitude can be granted in the matter of corruption which has
been consistently held by the Apex court in a catena of decisions. The
petitioner may raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order during the
course of trial. Therefore, we do not propose to say that the validity should be
examined at the stage of investigation or pretrial stage.
In the light of prolix and verbose discussions, we do not see any justifiable
ground warranting interference for quashing the impugned sanctioned order .
The writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 17.12.2013
Court No. – 55