Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 2645
High Court Of Delhi
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
BHARADWAAJ MEDIA PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
W. P. (Crl) 1126 Of 2007
Decided On : 11/27/2007
AKHIL SIBAL, ARUNDHATI KATJU, Mukta Gupta, P.K.DUBEY, PRADEEP CHANDRA, Rajdipa Behura, SIDHARTH LUTHRA
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the police to investigate the entire offence involving all those involved in taking bribes, including middlemen and media persons, and the protection of the petitioners' rights under the Prevention of Corruption Act during trial.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 12, 13, 120b IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 12, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120b IPC. It highlighted the duty of the police to investigate the commission of a cognizable offence and the obligation to book all those involved in the offence of taking bribe, including middlemen and media persons.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the quashing of an FIR under Section 12, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120b IPC, related to a sting operation exposing corruption by Members of Parliament and their agents. The petitioners claimed that their actions were in the public interest and protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the police to investigate the entire offence involving middlemen, Members of Parliament, and others who indulged in corruption and accepted bribes for asking and tabling questions in Parliament. It also granted the petitioners the liberty to seek protection from arrest and emphasized that the investigating agency should not single them out and leave MPs from the scope of investigation and action.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the FIR registration, the duty of the police to investigate the commission of a cognizable offence, and the protection of the petitioners' rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the police had an obligation to investigate the entire offence involving all those involved in taking bribes, including middlemen and media persons, and emphasized that the protection claimed by the petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act could be claimed only during trial and not at the stage of FIR registration.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the police to investigate the entire offence within 60 days and file a charge sheet. It granted the petitioners the liberty to seek protection from arrest and ensured that the investigating agency should not single them out and leave MPs from the scope of investigation and action.
( 2 ) THE FIR was also registered against the officials of Cobrapost. com, TV Channel 7 and Aaj Tak, which, according to complainant, committed an offence of abetment, as defined under Section 12 of prevention of Corruption Act, by carrying out Operation Duryodhan and telecasting the same. It is also stated that they have acted in contravention of the procedure given under Rule 295 of the Rules of procedure and Conduct of Business in the council of States regarding unethical behaviour or breach of code of conduct by a Member.
( 3 ) QUASHING of the instant FIR is sought on the ground that the registration of the fir was a gross and blatant violation of the rights of the petitioners who had undertaken an operation in public interest to expose the corruption and criminal acts on the part of some Members of Parliament and their agents. The action of the
petitioners of exposing corruption was necessary so that the people may know the acts of their elected representatives. The exposure of criminal activities on the part of the Members of parliament could not have been done without resorting to undercover investigation. Being associated with Fourth estate, it was the duty of the petitioners to bring truth to the knowledge of people. The petitioners acted in exercise of their rights guaranteed under Article 19 (l) (a) of the constitution and the FIR registered against the petitioners was an illegal act resulting into unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of the petitioners of free speech. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners amounted to unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights of the petitioners as there was no bar on trap being laid by a person other than the police officer to expose the criminal activities of offenders and perpetuators of crime. It is also stated that the reporters of the petitioners deposed on oath before the parliamentary Committees making full and truthful disclosures about all facts and the parliamentary Inquiry Committee raised no doubts as to the bona fides of the reporters and the action against the Members of parliament was initiated by the respective house on the basis of allegations m
