Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
Devender Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(CRL) 3247 of 2018 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 34807-08 of 2018, W.P.(CRL) 3248 of 2018 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 34811-12 of 2018, 35599 of 2018 W.P.(CRL) 3292 of 2018 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 35067-68
Decided On : 11-01-2019
The Court held that the FIR registered against the petitioners, public servants, and private persons, for alleged offenses under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was not liable to be quashed. The Court held that the allegations against the petitioners, though serious, did not fall within the ambit of Section 17A of the PC Act, which provides protection to public servants from prosecution for acts done in the discharge of their official duties. The Court further held that the registration of the FIR was not actuated by malice on the part of the investigating officer, and that the delay in uploading the FIR on the CBI website was justified in view of the sensitive nature of the case.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed with the CBI alleging that the complainant, Sana, was coerced, intimidated, and lured to part with certain monies for the promise of providing him relief from repeatedly being called for investigation by the investigating officer in an ongoing case. The complainant alleged that the monies were extorted from him through threat, on the promise that he will ultimately be let off only when he gives the monies. The CBI registered an FIR against the petitioners, public servants, and private persons, for alleged offenses under various sections of the PC Act and the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the allegations against the petitioners, though serious, did not fall within the ambit of Section 17A of the PC Act, which provides protection to public servants from prosecution for acts done in the discharge of their official duties. The Court further held that the registration of the FIR was not actuated by malice on the part of the investigating officer, and that the delay in uploading the FIR on the CBI website was justified in view of the sensitive nature of the case.
Issues: Whether the FIR registered against the petitioners was liable to be quashed under Section 17A of the PC Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the allegations against the petitioners, though serious, did not fall within the ambit of Section 17A of the PC Act, which provides protection to public servants from prosecution for acts done in the discharge of their official duties. The Court further held that the registration of the FIR was not actuated by malice on the part of the investigating officer, and that the delay in uploading the FIR on the CBI website was justified in view of the sensitive nature of the case.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners, challenging the registration of the FIR against them.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
1. 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;
(c) Elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, 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 there for 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 there for 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 Charge-sheet 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 claims that later he
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
