As per the case facts, the High Court refused to quash a suo motu letter regarding an investigation and a sanction letter for prosecution under the UAPA. The appeal to ... the Supreme Court challenged the High Court's decision, arguing against the validity of these actions. The question arose whether the High Court erred in not quashing the investigation and sanction, especially concerning compliance with UAPA provisions and the applicability of certain CrPC sections and exemptions. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit. It affirmed that compliance with Section 45 of UAPA requires independent review for sanction. The Court also stated that issues regarding CrPC Sections 218-222 and 223, as well as the applicability of Section 22A exemption, are matters for the Trial Court to decide based on evidence.