Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Raj Kumar Inspector, NCB New Delhi - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Respondent
CRL M.C No. 6330 of 2019
Decided On : 08-11-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 120-B-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 7,8 and 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d)- Registration of the FIR by the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, CBI - Quashing of the FIR-commission of cognizable offences- Unexplained delay of almost three years between the date of the alleged occurrence and that the FIR having been registered – Whether FIR has been lodged against him maliciously in order to settle the personal grudge or acrimony owing to the complaint dated 22.7.2015 made by the petitioner against certain officials of the Narcotics Control Bureau –Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court :Undoubtedly, there appears to be a delay in the registration of the FIR which relates to an occurrence of the year 2016 with the FIR registered on 24.5.2019 but the aspect of the contents thereof being true or otherwise can only be considered at trial and per se cannot dislodge the registration of the FIR -source information did not report the matter to the Magistrate or the nearest Police Station-, it is essential to observe that the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner as per the FIR relate to offences punishable under Sections 7,8, 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,which offences do not fall within the ambit of Section 39(1) of the Cr.P.C.,1973 -investigation is still in progress and though apparently, the investigation appears to be in progress for a long time now after the registration of the FIR in the year 2019, the same, per se, in view of the allegations putforth through the FIR of the alleged commission of the cognizable offence allegedly by the petitioner, the FIR cannot be quashed.
Result : Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The petitioner, vide the present petition seeks the quashing of the FIR bearing No. RC DAI-2019-A-0019 dated 24.5.2019 under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 7,8 and 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered against him by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi.
2. The petitioner was an Intelligence Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau and had since been compulsorily retired by the department on 13.07.2019.
3. RC-DAI-2019-A-0019 was registered on 24.5.2019 against the petitioner, an Inspector of the NCB, Delhi, and against one Vishwadeep Bansal (private person), Sh. Neeraj Bhatia, Director of M/s Three B Healthcare Ltd. & M/s Laborate Pharmaceuticals and unknown officials of the NCB and unknown private persons.
4. As per the reply that the respondent CBI has submitted to the petition, the team of the NCB, Chandigarh, conducted a raid on 31.5.2016 at the factory premises of M/s Three B Healthcare Ltd., at Ponta Sahib (HP) during which raid Mr.Rajender Singh Rajput, General Manager, was present at the said factory premises and during the said raid the NCB team found 6 kg of Codiene Phosphate in the almirah of Sh.Rajender Singh Rajput. Sh. Neeraj Bhatia of the said M/s Three B Healthcare Ltd., is stated to have contacted Mr.Vishwadeep Bansal S/o Sh.Rajender Prasad Bansal R/o H. No. 1/4/111, Sector -16, Rohini, Delhi-89 and requested him to get the matter settled with the NCB officials as Sh.Neeraj Bhatia was apprehensive that the NCB officials would arrest Sh.Rajender Singh Rajput and would also file a criminal complaint in the matter which would damage his reputation. The said Sh.Vishwadeep Bansal is stated tohave assured Sh.Neeraj Bhatia that he would get the matter settled after negotiating with the senior officers at the NCB, Head Quarters, New Delhi and as per the source of information Sh.Vishwadeep Bansal met some senior officers of the NCB at the NCB Head Quarters, New Delhi and thereafter asked Sh.Neeraj Bhatia to make a payment of Rs.12,00,000/- and thus Sh.Neeraj Bhatia on 13.6.2016 sent an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to Sh.Vishwadeep Bansal at Delhi for making further payment to the NCB officials and the source further informed that Sh.Vishwadeep Bansal made the payment of Rs.12,00,000/- to Raj Kumar, Inspector, NCB, New Delhi, i.e., to the petitioner herein.
5. The CBI thus submitted that the said allegations disclosed the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 7,8 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the part of Sh.Raj Kumar, Inspector, NCB, Delhi, i.e., the present petitioner, Sh.Vishwadeep Bansal, Sh.Neeraj Bhatia, Director of M/s Three B Healthcare Ltd., unknown officials of the NCB and unknown private persons and thus a regular case was registered against Shri Raj Kumar, Inspector, NCB, i.e. the present petitioner, apart from the case having also been registered against Sh.Vishwadeep Bansal, Sh.Neeraj Bhatia, Director M/s Three B Healthcare Ltd., unknown officials of NCB and unknown private persons under Section 120-B read with Section 7,8 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
6. The petitioner, through the present petition, submits that the genesis of this case, which he claims is malicious, is the factum that he had submitted a complaint dated 22.7.2015 to the Dy.Director, NCB stating therein that some officials of the Delhi Zonal Unit of the NCB were extorting money from firms using his name and thus the petitioner herein was asked by the department vide letter No. IV/24/2015-Vig.1002 dated 5.8.2015 to provide information of the names of the officials of the Delhi Zonal Unit (DZU) who were allegedly extorting money. The petitioner submits that he responded to this letter dated 5.8.2015 vide his letter dated 1.9.2015 addressed to the Deputy Director (Admin.), NCB, New Delhi indicating therein tha
The power to quash a complaint/FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and is an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
The necessity of conducting a preliminary enquiry in cases of alleged corruption involving disproportionate assets, and the requirement of registering an FIR based on existing legal provisions.
The court affirmed that, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, assets of family members may be considered when determining disproportionate wealth, and political motivations are insufficient to qua....
Court upheld the FIR alleging bribery against a public servant, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence for prosecution, rejecting claims of mala fides and ensuring adherence to procedural ....
Preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before FIR registration under the Prevention of Corruption Act; a prima facie case allows for investigation without prior inquiry.
Forgery - Quash of FIR - Rights of petitioner - While ensuring and protecting rights of accused and complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and, in any case, it should not exceed....
The court ruled that allegations in an FIR must disclose a prima facie case for investigation, and mere recovery of cash without evidence linking the accused to a bribery transaction does not suffice....
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
