Allahabad High Court
MOHD. IQBAL ALIAS BALAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ court, having become functus officio after cognizance was taken by the jurisdictional magistrate, dismissed the petition as infructuous and did not interfere with the sanction order.
Summary
Mohd Iqbal filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition under Article 226 challenging a sanction order dated 28‑11‑2024 issued by the Chairman of the U.P. Legislative Council under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondents raised preliminary objections, contending that the Chairman, who passed the order, was not impleaded and that the petition was filed after an inordinate delay of more than one year and seven months. They further argued that the jurisdiction of the writ court was barred because cognizance of the case had already been taken by the jurisdictional magistrate, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni. The petitioner argued that the sanction was illegal because Section 19C of the Act had not been amended, relying on P.V. Narsimharao. The Court held that once cognizance is taken by the magistrate, the writ court becomes functus officio and cannot examine the sanction’s validity, and therefore dismissed the petition as infructuous. The interim order, if any, was vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether the Chairman of the U.P. Legislative Council, who passed the sanction order, must be impleaded as a necessary and proper party.
- Whether the writ petition is barred by delay/laches for being filed more than a year after the sanction order.
- Whether the writ court has jurisdiction to examine the validity of the sanction order after cognizance has been taken by the jurisdictional magistrate.
- Whether a sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be validly granted without amendment of Section 19C.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13(2), 13(2)(b), 19, 193(3), 19C
Subjects
- sanction order
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Section 19
- Article 226
- jurisdiction
- delay
- non‑joinder
- cognizance
- infructuous
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12644 of 2026
Mohd. Iqbal Alias Bala
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Indra Bhan Yadav, Vijay Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 46
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. S. Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. S. B.
Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Manish Goyal, the learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, the
learned A.G.A. Ist representing State/respondents 1, 2 and 3.
2. Perused the record.
3. Mohd. Iqbal Alias Bala, the writ petitioner, has approached this Court by
means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the sanction order dated 28.11.2024 passed
by the Chairmain, U.P. Legislative Council in exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Mr. Manish Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate General representing
State/respondents 1, 2 and 3 has raised preliminary objections regarding
maintainability of present writ petition. He first invited the attention of Court
to the cause title of present writ petition and with reference to same, he
submits that the impugned sanction order was passed by the Chairman, U.P.
Legislative Council. However, the Chairman, U.P. Legislative Council has
not been impleaded as a party/respondent in present writ petition. Referring
to the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, AIR 1963
Supreme Court 786, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate
General that the authority, which has passed the order and the person in
whose favour, the order has been passed, are necessary and proper party to a
CRLP No. 12644 of 2026
2
writ petition. Since the authority, which has passed the impugned order, has
not been impleaded as a party/respondents in present writ petition, therefore,
present writ petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary and
proper party. As such, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this
ground.
5. It is then contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the
prosecution' sanction was granted by the Chairman, U.P. Legislative Council
by means of the impugned order dated 28.11.2024. However, the present
writ petition has been filed on 16.05.2026 i.e. after an expiry of more than
one year and seven months. Even though there is delay of more than one
year and 7 months in filing the present writ petition but the delay in filing
the present writ petition has not been sufficiently explained. It is thus urged
that since present writ petition is barred by delay/laches and the same having
not been sufficiently explained coupled with the fact that jurisdiction under
Article 226 of is one of the equity and good conscience and delay defeats
equity, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay/laches.
6. Learned Advocate General further contended that upon completion of
statutory investigation of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2022 arising out of the
F.I.R. dated 01.06.2022 lodged by first informant/respondent-4, Ranveer
Singh, Inspector (Vigilance Establishment) 151-D Saket, Meerut, under
Sections 13 (2) (B) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
Police Station, Sector (Vigilance Act), District-Meerut, the charge
sheet/police report in terms of Section 193 (3) BNSS was submitted on
01.09.2025. Thereafter, the court concerned/jurisdictional Magistrate has
taken cognizance upon same vide cognizance taking order 15.09.2025.
Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Pradnya
Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1948, the Additional Advocate General thus submits that in
view of above, no jurisdiction lies with this Court to examine the veracity of
the prosecution's sanction order dated 28.11.2024 impugned in present writ
petition. On the above premise, the learned Additional Advocate General
submits that present writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court as
having rendered infructuous.
CRLP No. 12644 of 2026
3
7. When confronted with above, Mr. D. S. Mishra, the learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Dr. S. B. Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner
submits that by virtue of the law laid down by Apex Court in P. V.
Narsimharao Vs. State (CBI)/SC (respondent) 1998 (4) SCC 626, no
prosecution' sanction for an offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 can be granted in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, unless Section 19 C of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is amended. He, therefore, submits that in view of this
legal fiction, no prosecution's sanction could have been granted under the
impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is patently illegal being in
excess of jurisdiction. As such, the same can be quashed by this court even
after cognizance has been taken by court concerned/jurisdictional magistrate.
8. We are afraid at the submissions urged by the learned counsel for
petitioner. Whether the sanction could have been granted or not by the
competent authority/concerned Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 cannot be examined by
us at his stage. Since the cognizance upon police report has already been
taken by the jurisdictional Magistrate/concerned Magistrate, therefore, the
caution given by Apex Court in the case of Pradnya Pranjal
Kulkarni(Supra), wherein it has already held that once cognizance has been
taken by the jurisdictional magistrate/concerned court then writ court dealing
with the veracity of an F.I.R becomes functus officio to examine the veracity
of the F.I.R. The analogy laid down by Apex Court in the Case of Pradnya
Pranjal Kulkarni(Supra), is also applicable in the present case.
9. For all the reasons given above, we are of the view that no interference is
warranted by this court in present writ petition.
10. It is accordingly dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
11. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
September 28, 2026
YK
Digitally signed by :-
YASHWANT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…