The High Court can direct the CBI to investigate cognizable offences without state consent, especially in cases involving significant public interest and international ramifications.

JUDGMENT :

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a public rights activist and founding member of a Non-Governmental Organizations involved in espousing public interests has approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following substantive prayers:

“A. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to jointly and/or severally carry out a preliminary investigation on the basis of the Complaint dated 22^nd December 2021 (Exhibit E and F) and the Complaint dated 3 April 2023 (Exhibit J) and submit a report to this Hon’ble Court within a period of 3 weeks from the date of the Order or any such other time as this Hon’ble Court may deem it fit and proper;

B. Ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (A)above;

B-1. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to transfer the investigation of the Complaints to the Crime Investigation Department, Maharashtra;

B-2. The petitioner submits that in light of the manner in which the investigation in being conducted by Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.4, it is necessary and in the interest of justice that the investigation be transferred to another investigating agency, namely the Criminal Investigation Department, Maharashtra for necessary action of the Petitioner’s complaints;

C. For costs;

D. For any other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present matter”.

2. Before adverting to the facts, it is pertinent to note that this is not the first case in public interest that the petitioner has agitated, but previously he had filed a Public Interest Litigation (for short “PIL”) No.1942 of 2005 before this Court exposing scams of approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- Crores (Rupees one lac Crore) in incentive schemes in Import Export Policies. The PIL was admitted on 25^th January, 2006.

3. The petitioner contends that in April, 2006, he has filed two PILs’ bearing Criminal Writ Petition No.3 of 2006 and Criminal Writ Petition No.13 of 2006 against M/s. Autoriders Finance Limited for;

(i) misappropriation of approximately Rs.50 Crores availed as a loan from United Trust of India;

(ii) misappropriation of approximately Rs.76 Crores availed as loan from a consortium of six banks wherein Union Bank of India was the lead Bank.

After filing the aforesaid two PILs’ sometime in the month of April, 2009, the banks have collectively recovered approximately Rs.14,00,00,000/- (Rs. Fourteen Crores only) from M/s. Autoriders Finance Limited. This Court, by a common order dated 9^th July, 2009 disposed of the aforesaid two PILs’ by entrusting the investigation of the subject matter therein to the State C.I.D, Pune, Maharashtra State under the overall supervision of Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D, Maharashtra State, Pune.

4. The present petition is filed seeking limited directions, inter alia, issuance of an appropriate writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to jointly act upon the complaint dated 22^nd December, 2021 (First EOW complaint) and the complaint dated 3^rd April, 2023 (Second EOW complaint) filed by the petitioner wherein he has prayed for conducting preliminary investigation/inquiry into the fraudulent activities undertaken by one Anand Jaikumar Jain- the Director/Promoter of Jai Corporation Ltd (Jai Corp Ltd) which includes:

(i) misappropriation of public monies for personal enrichment;

(ii) defrauding investors;

(iii) round tripping of funds through shell companies based in tax havens;

(iv) making unsecured advances to subsidiaries with the intention to launder public money and;

(v) creation of dubious and fictitious invoices, all of which are predicate offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”)

5. The petitioner further contends that the respondent No.1 failed to act upon the complaints filed by