Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
Najmi Waziri, J.
Devender Kumar and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
and Ors. —Respondents
W.P. (Crl) 3247 of 2018 and Crl. M.A. Nos.34807-08 of 2018
W.P. (Crl) 3248 of 2018 and Crl. M.A. Nos.34811-12 of 2018, 35599 of 2018
W.P. (Crl) 3292 of 2018 and Crl. M.A. Nos.35067-68
Decided on 11.1.2019

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) 3247/2018:Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Singh, Mr. Swatik Dalai and Ms. Aakashi Lodha, Advocates
For the Petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) 3248/2018:Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari and Mr. Shashwat Singh, Advocates
For the Petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) 3292/2018:Ms. Seema Seth, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General with Mrs. Rajdipa Behura, Special Public Prosecutor with SP Mr. Satish Dagar, IO. Ms. Maninder Acharya, Addl. Solicitor General with Mr. Ajay Digpual, CGSC, Mr. Soumava Karhakar, Mr. Sahil Sood, Mr. Harshul Choudhary and Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
Mr. M. A. Niyazi, Ms. Anamika Ghai and Ms. Kirti Jaswal, Advocates for Respondent No.3 in Item Nos.1 and 2
For the Intervenor:Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Priyanka Indra Sharma and Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi, Advocates
Mr. Shashwat Singh, Ms. Harshal Gupta and Ms. Devyani Gupta, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with investigation and/or trial of criminal cases.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 17A read with Sections 7, 7A, 13(2), 13(1)(d)—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 120B—Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946—Section 4—Quashing application—High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that allegations contained in FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence—Judicial intervention at threshold of legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to larger public and societal interest—People and society have legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished. (Para 31)
       (B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 17Aread with Sections 7, 7A, 13(2), 13(1)(d)—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 120B—Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946—Section 4—Quashing application—Incompetent investigation—Alleged prior sanction/ permission from Government of India before registration of FIR—Purpose of Section 17A can be read to be only to provide protection to officers/public servants who discharge their official functions and/or duties with diligence, fairly, in an unbiased manner and to the best of their ability and judgment, without any motive for their personal advantage or favour—Complainant has alleged coercion, threat and extortion of money, for an offence under Section 7 of PC Act as well, but such acts by a public servant cannot be said to be in discharge of his official function or duties—In present case, approval under Section 17A of Act would not be necessary—All persons against whom investigations are initiated would be presumed to be innocent till such time that they are proven guilty—Persons concerned would have to bear with the process of law—However, it is desirable that process must come to a conclusion expeditiously—Fair name of a public servant is perhaps his most cherished possession and would be guarded most fiercely—Such reputation precedes social and official interaction of public servant—It is more than a calling card—Grounds of malafides of Respondent no.2 in registering FIR are not made out—Nor can allegations against petitioner be conclusively ruled out at this stage—Petitions dismissed. (Paras 36, 37, 39 and 50)
       Result: Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri Najmi Waziri, J.—W.P. (Crl.) 3248/2018 shall be treated as the lead case and unless stated otherwise, the expression petitioner shall mean the petitioner in this case. Respondent no. 2 is the Director, CBI, Respondent no. 3 is a Joint Director in the CBI, Respondent no. 4 is the UOI. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. RC 13(A)/2018/AC-III dated 15.10.2018 (in short FIR/RC 2018) registered by the CBI. It is impugned on the ground that it falls foul of the statutory bar under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (in short PC Act). The said provision of law reads as under:—

“...17.A. Persons authorised to investigate.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,—

(a) In the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;

(b) In the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;

shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant:

Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is suthorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the caase may be, or make arrest therefor without a warrant;

Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police....”

Facts

2. One Mr. Satish Babu (Sana) was being investigated by the CBI in RC No. 2242017A0001 (in short FIR/RC 2017). He has alleged harassment by the Investigating Officer of that case, demand of illegal gratification and extortion by the latter. He had complained of being repeatedly called by the investigating officials and at some stage was promised, through two persons namely Manoj Prasad (Manoj) and Somesh Prasad (Somesh), that in lieu of payment of Rs. 5 crores his harassment i.e. his being called for repeated investigation would cease. The said complaint was given by Sana to the CBI on 15.10.2018 wherein he had stated that he had appeared before Mr. Devinder Kumar, DSP on 12.10.2017 in CBI office on subsequent dates as well and had given answers to the query put to him apropos the RC 2017. That in December 2017 he interacted with one Manoj, whom Sana claims to have known for some time; the latter assured him of help in the case because of his proximity with some CBI officers. Manoj introduced the petitioner to his brother Somesh. They spoke to somebody over the telephone and promptly assured Sana again that his problem would be solved and no further CBI notice would be issued to him. However, for this relief an amount of Rs. 5 crores would have to be paid to the CBI officers through Somesh. An advance of Rs. 3 crores would have to be paid, while the remaining amount of Rs. 2 crores would be payable at the time of filing of the Chargesheet in the case and a clean chit would be managed for Sana. The complaint further states that upon inquiries made by him about the CBI Officer, with whom Somesh has spoken over the phone, the latter showed him a Display Profile (DP) on his Whatsapp contact, a picture indicating that that was the officer/person with whom he had spoken and who had assured favours to him in lieu of the payment of Rs. 5 crores. The said picture was of a person in police uniform. Somesh identified the said person as the petitioner in WP(Crl.) No. 3248/2018. Sana clai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with investigation and/or trial of criminal cases.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with investigation and/or trial of criminal cases.