JUDGMENT : Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S. K. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. None appeared from the side of Opposite Party No. 2, although Vakalatnama has been traced out by the office and has been placed on record. 3. This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 21.07.2014 passed in Complaint (Special) Case No. 2 of 2013 (Puran Prasad Gupta Vs. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi) pending before Additional Session Court-I, Maharajganj as well as prayer is made to stay the further proceedings of the above said case. 4. In order to understand the dispute involved in this case, it would be appropriate to give in brief facts of the case, which are as follows: An Application under 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by Opposite Party No. 2/complainant of this case Puran Prasad Gupta stating therein that he had applied for a loan of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- by Poorwanchal Gramin Bank, Branch Nichlaul on 01.05.2012, which was to be sanctioned under "Mukhyamantri Gramodoyog Rojgar Yojna". After sanction of loan file of the same was made available to the accused-applicant on 25.05.2012. At the instance of the accused, Chartered Accountant had submitted project report and the valuation of the residential plot of the guarantor was also made available on the basis of registered deed by the Engineer. Tehsildar had also made evaluation. Necessary documents were also prepared by the authorized advocate of the Bank and for completing all these formalities approximately an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was spent by Opposite Party No. 2 apart from Rs. 5,000/- which were also spent by the Opposite Party No. 2 on other expenditure. After having completed all the formalities when the Opposite Party No. 2 sought information from the Assistant Branch Manager of Poorwanchal Gramin Bank, Branch Nichlaul, he made him run again and again on one pretext or the other and ultimately, on 04.09.2012, he demanded 10 % of the sanctioned loan amount before he would release the funds which were sanctioned as loan. At this, the Opposite Party No. 2 asked him to provide him the receipt of the said amount pursuant to which he had promised to pay the 10% amount but it was told by the applicant that he would not be able to give the said amount of loan without the payment of the 10% of sanctioned loan amount. This act of the applicant was covered in corrupt practices and hence he was told that he would make a complaint against him in this regard. Thereafter, the applicant refused, left the place after abusing the Opposite Party No. 2 in a huff/anger and gave threat that he would get him implicated in false case of loot. A complaint was given to higher authorities against the applicant but to no avail. An application was also given at the police station concerned but nothing was done. Hence, a registered complaint was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj on 23.01.2013 but even then no action was taken. The present case was registered by the trial court as a complaint case as Special Case No. 2 of 2013. After its registration, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 06.06.2013 in which the said facts have been narrated as were mentioned in the complaint and in support of his case, the Opposite Party No. 2 got examined two other witnesses also under Section 202 Cr.P.C. namely Sudhanshu Tiwari S/o late Jagdish Narayan and Govind Kumar S/o Ram Avtar and both of them have supported the version of the complainant to the effect that the applicant was asking 10% of the sanctioned loan amount from Opposite Party No. 2 for release of amount of loan by way of commission and when the same was not given then it was told that a complaint would be made against him. The accused left the place in a great anger abusing the Opposite Party No. 2 and also threatening that he would implicate the Opposite Party No. 2/complainant in a false case. 5. The accused left the place in a great anger abusing the Opposite Party No. 2 and also threatening that he would implicate the Opposite Party No. 2/complainant in a false case. 5. In the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the order dated 21.07.2014 has been assailed whereby application 47-Kha moved by the accused-applicant has been rejected in which it was mentioned that the accused was summoned under Section 7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which cognizance could not have been taken against him unless sanction to prosecute him had been taken from the competent authority as per the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore he had sought to be discharged under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. The said application was dismissed by the said impugned order. 6. In the impugned order it is mentioned that against the said application 47-kha, the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 had filed an objection stating that cognizance had already been taken on the complaint moved by him and against the summoning order writ petition was preferred by the accused-applicant, which was dismissed upholding the summoning order. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that from the side of the accused- applicant it was argued that without proper sanction to prosecute him, given by the competent authority, no prosecution can be initiated against the applicant and hence he should be discharged under the provisions of 245 (2) Cr.P.C. 7. Reliance was placed upon three judgments i.e. (i) Subramanyam Swami Vs. Manmohan Singh and others, (2012) 1 SCC(Cri) 1041; (ii) Anil Kumar Vs. N. K. Aiyappa, (2014) 84 AllCriC 695 SC; and (iii) Nanhe Lal and others Vs. State of U.P., (2014) 84 AllCriC 944 Allahabad High Court. 8. After consideration the above said judgments, the trial court had recorded in the impugned order that after having taken into consideration the statement of the complainant and two other witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., a prima-facie case was found to have been made out under the above mentioned Sections against the accused-applicant and he was summoned to face trial for those offences, against which a revision had been preferred before the High Court and even revision was dismissed and summoning order was found to be rightly passed. It is further mentioned that earlier an application was also moved by the applicant under 245 (2) Cr.P.C. for discharge but even that was also dismissed vide order 15.02.2014, therefore, in these circumstances, the present application 245(2) Cr.P.C. for being discharged on a new ground, cannot be disposed of and accordingly dismissed the same. 9. In the affidavit in support of the application it is mentioned by the applicant that earlier a Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the applicant against the order dated 16.12.2013 which was numbered Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as 1205/14 (Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was disposed of vide order dated 15.01.2014 with the direction that the applicant shall move discharge application through counsel within 30 days before the court concerned and for a period of 30 days no coercive action was directed to be taken against him in the said Special Case No. 2 of 2013 pending before the Trial Court. 10. In compliance of the said order discharge application was moved by him, which was rejected vide order dated 15.02.2014 against which a Criminal Revision No. 635 of 2014 (Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P.) was filed before the High Court which was also rejected summarily vide order dated 25.03.2014 without hearing the arguments of the counsel for the applicant which is annexed as annexure no. 2. Further it is mentioned that the applicant/his counsel were not aware as to whether the sanction to prosecute the applicant was taken under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act or not. Therefore, the said point could not be raised earlier while moving application No. 1205 of 2014 or in Criminal Revision No. 635 of 2014. It is settled law that for fresh cause of action an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be filed by aggrieved person to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, hence, present application has been moved. 11. The case of the applicant is squarely covered by judgment of Subramanyam Swami (Supra) and Anil Kumar (Supra) as well as Judgment in Nanhe Lal (Supra) and the trial court has not made appropriate interpretation of those judgments and has erroneously passed the impugned order rejecting the application of the accused-applicant. 11. The case of the applicant is squarely covered by judgment of Subramanyam Swami (Supra) and Anil Kumar (Supra) as well as Judgment in Nanhe Lal (Supra) and the trial court has not made appropriate interpretation of those judgments and has erroneously passed the impugned order rejecting the application of the accused-applicant. Further it is mentioned that the applicant is not empowered to grant loan under the Scheme of Pradhanmantri Gramodyog Yojna because the applicant had not even the target given by the Regional Office and in support thereof he has enclosed a list sent by the Regional Office Poorvanchal Bank dated 12.07.2012 which is annexed as annexure no. 5. In absence of the target, the applicant returned the loan application of Opposite Party No. 2 to Zila Gramodyog Adhikari, Maharajganj twice, first on 24.09.2012 and thereafter on 16.12.2012, true copies of the orders are annexed to the affidavit as annexure 6-A and 6-B. 12. The applicant is a Senior Bank Officer working as Senior Assistant Manager (Advance) in Poorvanchal Bank and has unblemished record of last 37 years of service. The Opposite Party No. 2 is a local press reporter of Hindustan newspaper who after his application was returned, tried to blackmail the applicant and has filed false complaint. Firstly, he had moved District Consumer Forum, Maharajganj before which his application was rejected on 11.09.2013, copy of order is annexed as annnexure no. 7 to the affidavit. After losing the case there, he filed the present false complaint which was registered as Special Case (complaint) no. 2 of 2013 which is nothing but an abuse of process of court and deserves to be quashed as in absence of sanction to prosecute under Section 19 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act by the competent authority, he cannot be relegated to of disadvantageous position to face prosecution. Hence, the impugned order dated 21.07.2011 needs to be set-aside along with entire proceedings in complaint case. 13. From the side of Opposite Party No. 2, in rebuttal, it appears that no Counter-Affidavit has been filed, however, from the side of learned A.G.A. Counter-Affidavit has been filed in which it is mentioned that the present case is arising out of a complaint case, hence, the police has nothing to do with the same. 14. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on Subramanian Swamy Vs. 14. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 1 SCC(Cri) 1041. In this case it has been held that there is no provision either in P.C. Act 1988 or in Cr.P.C. which bars a citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution of a Public Servant who is alleged to have committed an offence. The appellant, a private citizen, has a right to file a complaint for prosecution of respondent no. 2 being a cabinet minister in respect of the commission of offence committed by the respondent no. 2 under the 1988 Act. It is further held in this case that in paragraph 58 of the judgment of Vineet Narains case,1998 1 SCC 326, the Supreme Court gave several directions in relation to C.B.I., the C.V.C, and Enforcement Directorate. In para 58(I)(15), the Supreme Court gave following directions: "58.(I)(15): Time-limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to. However, additional time of one month may be allowed where consultation is required with the Attorney General (A.G.) or any other Law Officer in the A.G.'s Office." In future, every competent authority shall take appropriate action on the representation made by a citizen for sanction of the prosecution of a public Servant strictly in accordance with the direction contained in Vineet Narain's case (Supra) and the guidelines framed by the C.V.C. Sanction Prosecution Guidelines,2005. 15. The above citations which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant clearly laid down that every citizen of the country has a right to make a complaint if he comes across a Government Servant who indulged in corruption and that if any such complaint is moved against him there is time limit prescribed for grant of sanction to prosecute him as laid down in Vineet Narayan's case (Supra). 16. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that since the applicant in the present case is a Branch Manager of the Pooranchal Gramin Bank, who is qualifying to be treated a Government Servant and therefore before initiating his prosecution it was essential to seek prior approval for his prosecution from the appropriate authority which has not been taken in the present case by the Opposite Party No. 2. Hence, preliminary proceedings against him need to be quashed. 17. Hence, preliminary proceedings against him need to be quashed. 17. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on Anil Kumar Vs. M. K. Aiyappa, (2014) 84 AllCriC 695 SC. in In this case, the appellant filed a private complaint against the first respondent, a public Servant, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 406,409,420,426,463,465,468,471,474 read with Section 120-B and Section 149 of I.P.C. and Section 8,13(1)(c),13(1)(d),13(1)(e),13(2) read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. 18. On receipt of this complaint, the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption passed an order referring the matter for investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokaayukt, in exercise of his powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. The High Court in a Writ Petition filed by the first respondent quashed the order passed by the Special Judge as well as the complaint on the ground that the Special Judge could not have taken notice of the private complaint against a public Servant unless the same was accompanied by a sanction order against a public Servant under Section 19(1) of the P.C. Act, whether the Court was acting at a pre-cognizance stage or a post-cognizance stage. Aggrieved by the same the, complainant had filed the present appeal, dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, and in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) for investigation against a public Servant without a valid sanctioned order under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents, and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. The Special Judge/Magistrate in the present case, has stated no reasoning for ordering further investigation. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. The Special Judge/Magistrate in the present case, has stated no reasoning for ordering further investigation. It is apparent from the above citation that in a complaint case where the trial court takes cognizance of the offence under the procedure of complaint case and records statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would be mandatory before taking cognizance against the accused to seek prior prosecution sanction. It would be appropriate for the complainant to seek prior permission for prosecution of the public Servant without such prior permission from the competent authority no cognizance on the said complaint can be taken by the court. 19. In the present case, I find that the applicant being Assistant Branch Manager of Poorvanchal Gramin Bank has been stated to have demanded 10% of the amount of sanctioned loan from the Opposite Party no. 2 before he would release the same, which was refused to be given, hence the complainant moved the present complaint. It is apparent that the Opposite Party no. 2 ought to have sought the sanction to prosecute the accused-applicant from appropriate authority before moving the complaint before the trial court. Apparently, it appears that the cognizance of the offence which has been taken in this matter by the trial court, appears to be in violation of the established principle of law as laid down in Anil Kumar (supra) that in this case of alleged corruption, in which summoning order has been passed under Section 7 and 13 of the Corruption Act, the cognizance has been taken by the trial court without the complainant having obtained the sanction from the appropriate authority, the accused-applicant being a Government Servant. 20. 20. As regards the fact that the accused-applicant has already approached this Court twice earlier and each time his application was rejected, who initially approached this Court by preferring application No. 1205 of 2014 in which he was directed to appear before the trial court to seek discharge but his application has been rejected and thereafter, he approached this court in Revision No. 635 of 2014 but the same was also summarily rejected, in each of above mentioned two orders, the present point of prosecution sanction not having been obtained against the accused-applicant, had not been taken into consideration which to me appears to be mandatory in the present case. In view of the above, I am of the view, the impugned order along with the summoning order in the present case deserve to be quashed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Court again after having obtained prior sanction to prosecute the applicant from appropriate authority. The present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed.