Suresh Kait, J.

Crl. M.C. No. 4026/2014

1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court in case bearing FIR No.10/2006 registered at Police Station Special Cell for the offences punishable under Sections 121/121A/122/123/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in essence, present case is of a person who had been working as an informer for the Intelligence Bureau (‘IB’) and Special Cell of the Delhi Police branch since the year 2000, which fact has been conclusively established by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) during its in-depth investigation conducted pursuant to the directions of this Court, whereby CBI submitted the Call Detail Records (CDR’s) of petitioner No.1 being in constant touch with the senior officers of Special Cell and IB to/from landline numbers of IB/HMA. The IB officers were coercing the petitioners to join a militant camp in Jammu and Kashmir and provide information from there but their refusal to obey the orders of their masters culminated into the false implication in the present FIR alongwith recovery of the alleged contraband. Subsequently, these facts were brought to the notice of this Court by way of a petition bearing Writ Petition (Crl.) No.501/2006, whereby vide order dated 04.08.2008 this Court was pleased to transfer the investigation to CBI while casting serious doubts on the story of the Special Cell regarding the false implication of the petitioners. The CBI after conducting in-depth investigation filed its closure report before the learned Trial Court seeking discharge of the petitioners and action against the erring police officials. However, the learned Trial Court while declining to accept the closure report of CBI being premature concluded that truthfulness of two versions of two different agencies requires thorough trial of the case and also rejected the discharge application of the petitioner No.1.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a petition being Crl. M.C. No.2418/2014 assailing the said order, wherein this Court vide order dated 20.05.2014 after hearing the parties including the learned Attorney General of India allowed the petition and remanded back the matter to the learned Trial Court with the direction to only consider the CBI closure report and hear the parties afresh without influencing with the report of the Special Cell.

4. However, the Special Cell approached the Supreme Court assailing the aforesaid judgment in Crl.A. Nos.2040-2041 of 2012, wherein vide judgment dated 13.12.2012, the Supreme Court directed the learned Trial Court to exercise one of the three options whilst hearing the parties, viz., firstly, it may accept the application of accused for discharge, secondly, it may direct that the trial may proceed further in accordance with law and thirdly, if it is dissatisfied on any important aspect of investigation already conducted and in its considered opinion, it is just, proper and necessary in the interest of justice to direct ‘further investigation’, it may do so.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Trial Court while passing the order dated 21.04.2014 had discussed all the three options contemplated by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 13.12.2012, however, ignored the third option of directing ‘further investigation’, without giving any cogent reason for the same and consequently exercised the second option to proceed with the trial. The learned Trial Court while discussing the third option, i.e., regarding ‘further investigation’, had merely observed the closure report of CBI and gave its opinion as to why it is not convinced with the same.

6. The learned Trial Court had discussed ten points to negate