SACHIN AHLAWAT Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing/setting aside of order of cognizance as well as summoning order dtd. 13/2/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Special Judge (CBI), Panchkula, Haryana, in FIR No.RC0052021A0014 dtd. 28/6/2021 (Annexure P-2) registered under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act') and Sec. 120-B of the IPC in case tilted as "CBI Vs. Rohit Sharma and another", case No. PC/10/2022 registered as CNR No.HRPK-01-004807-2022, vide which the petitioner was summoned for committing offence under Sec. 120-B of IPC. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dtd. 13/2/2025, whereby cognizance was taken and summoning orders were issued against the petitioner, suffers from a fundamental legal infirmity. It was submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in taking cognizance of the case without prior sanction under Sec. 19 of PC Act, which is a mandatory precondition for prosecuting a public servant for offences under the said Act. Learned senior counsel further submitted that cognizance has been taken against the petitioner solely under Sec. 120-B of the IPC, in the absence of any substantive offence under the Indian Penal Code being attributed to him. It was asserted that this amounts to a circumvention of the statutory bar imposed by Sec. 19 of the PC Act.

(3.) Learned senior counsel further argued that the CBI after concluding its investigation, admittedly forwarded the entire material collected during their investigation to the competent authority, namely the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBIC, for consideration of sanction under Sec. 19 of the PC Act. However, the competent authority, upon due application of mind to the entire material on record, including the complaint, transcripts, and verification report, declined to accord sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. In support, learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court to the communication annexed as Annexure P-4.