Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Anil Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State Thr. CBI - Respondent
CRL.M.C. 3973 of 2011 & CRL.M.A. 18337 of 2021
Decided On : 22-12-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482,197,2(b) and 161 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B,149,34,147,148,406,329, 386 and 114 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2) (1)(d) 19 and (c) - DMC Act - Section 507, 331 and 332 – Punishment for criminal breach of trust - Examination of witnesses by police - Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment - Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of First Information Report - Petitioner subsequent charge sheet filed in pursuance, order on charge and all proceedings arising out of it Another Application has also been filed before Court under Section 482 of Code inter alia seeking clarification as to application of interim orders passed on as subsisting and in force - Before adverting to submissions made by learned counsels for parties it is essential to highlight factual background of instant matter - Petitioner was posted as an Assistant Engineer at Municipal Corporation of Delhi South Zone from - Whether there has been an abuse of process or interests of justice requires proceedings to be quashed.
Finding of the Court : Provisions of law Court finds no merit in instant petition a case for exercise of Section 482 jurisdiction is not made out and is Court does not deem it fit to interfere with order on charge of Trial Court - Court neither finds any force in arguments made by learned Counsel for petitioner nor finds any apparent error in finding of Court below since a prima facie case is made out against accused - Court is also of opinion in view of evidence on record that possibility of offense under said sections cannot be ruled out - Baton is before trial court which has to proceed with final arguments since trial is completed to examine merits of case as against nature of jurisdiction conferred upon Court under Section 482 of Code Court qua illegal and unauthorized construction as contrasted to Facts of A.K. Ganju case and thirdly in instant case MCD has itself initiated criminal proceedings by way of lodging of FIR details of which have been mentioned earlier as well as sanction for prosecuting public servants in question been granted by superior officer of petitioner upon his satisfaction. In Court case in light of aforesaid analysis a case for exercise for Section 482 jurisdiction is not made.
Result : Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) praying for quashing of First Information Report dated 10th June 2009 bearing number RC 2(A)/2009/CBI/ACU-VI/New Delhi lodged against the Petitioner, the subsequent charge sheet filed in pursuance thereof, order on charge and all the proceedings arising out of it. Another Application bearing CRL. M.A. - 18337/2021 has also been filed before this Court under Section 482 of the Code inter alia seeking clarification as to application of the interim orders passed on 29th July 2019 as subsisting and in force.
2. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsels for parties, it is essential to highlight the factual background of the instant matter.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The Petitioner was posted as an Assistant Engineer at the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as “MCD”), South Zone from December 2006 till May 2009. The petitioner was responsible to look after thirteen wards including Ward No. 174, Chattarpur Extension where the alleged unauthorized construction took place.
4. In Civil Writ Petition No. 4771 of 1993 titled as Common Cause v. Union of India, this High Court issued certain directions regarding the unauthorized construction in Delhi. These directions were also published in newspapers by Urban Development Department, National Capital Territory of Delhi on 14th September 1998. The directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court Delhi are as under :
5. With reference to the directions of the High Court dated 3rd November 1993, the Commissioner of MCD had issued Circular No. D/401/Addl.CM(E)/97 dated 13th November 1997 to curb unauthorized construction s in Delhi. Relevant portion of the Order is extracted hereunder:
We restrain all concerned from carrying out any construction activities in unauthorised colonies. We make it clear that not only the person constructing, namely, the owner of unauthorised construction but others also who, directly or indirectly, aid and assist the unauthorised constructions particularly, the Builders, Contractors, Architects, concerned Junior Engineers and Station House Officers would be severally dealt with in case unauthorised construction activity in violation of the order of this court is noticed. Besides the Officers would also be liable for departmental action. It will be expected from the Government to take immediate departmental action against their officers in case it is found that within the area of their jurisdiction unauthorised construction was being undertaken.”
2. It is, therefore, impressed upon all D.M.C. and the staff of the Building Department to keep a strict vigil on the construction activities in the unauthorized colonies. Any laxity would be taken very seriously, and the defaulters would be liable to stem disciplinary action.”
6. The FIR bearing number RC 2(A)/2009/CBI/ACU-VI/New Delhi was
SupremeToday
Point of Law : In light of the recoveries made and statement made by the independent witnesses, it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner has been involved in the commission of Sections 13(2) and 13....
The power of quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where no cognizable offense is disclosed in the FIR.
The court established that a complaint under the A.P. Municipalities Act must be filed within a specified time frame, and failure to do so can lead to quashing of proceedings.
The Special Officer lacked jurisdiction to regularize unauthorized construction under the KMC Act, rendering the action null and emphasizing the fundamental nature of jurisdiction in legal proceeding....
Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be applied cautiously, primarily to prevent abuse of process, and FIRs should not be quashed prematurely when allegations disclose a cognizable offenc....
Attempt to Murder - Court while hearing the matter under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at initial stage of trial, cannot examine and genuineness of the statement, allegation made in FIR.
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
