Point of Law: It is trite that court would exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only in rarest of rare cases, when there is perversity in orders of courts below or it results in miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

ASHA MENON, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) praying that the summoning order dated 4th November, 2019 in R.C. No. 219/2016-E-0003-16 be set aside.

2. The case in brief is that the petitioner No. 1 was previously posted as Deputy General Manager with the Oriental Bank of Commerce (now Punjab National Bank) whereas petitioners No. 2 and 4 are posted as Manager and Senior Manager respectively in the same bank. A written complaint had been submitted by the Deputy General Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office, Karol Bagh, Sh. Ravinder Yadav against Sh. Sanjay Khanna, Sh. Prem Nath Khanna and Sh. Sandeep Khanna, who are partners of M/s Adigear India, Smt. Amarjeet Kaur and other unknown officials of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, LU Branch, Pitampura and other unknown persons. On the basis of this complaint, the Economic Offences Wing-I of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR against all of them under Sections 120B/420 IPC and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The charge-sheet was filed against the accused showing the present petitioners in column No. 12, explaining that they were placed at column No. 12 as no sanction was granted by the competent authority to prosecute them.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite an absence of sanction, they have been summoned for committing the offence under Section 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC and the substantive offence of Section 420 IPC.

5. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Rouse Avenue Court, had erroneously summoned the petitioners in the absence of any sanction being granted for their prosecution. Attention has been drawn to the Office Memorandum (Annexure-E) dated 7th February, 2018 issued by the Advisor to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, to the effect that there was no evidence or proof of obtaining gain by the petitioners or any act of dishonesty, corrupt practice on their part. Hence, there was no criminal intent discernable in their acts, warranting criminal proceedings in the court of law. Therefore, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) through the Advisor declined grant of sanction for their prosecution.

6. Relying on the decision in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Others, (2020) 9 SCC 636, the learned senior counsel urged that the report of the CVC ought not to have been brushed aside so easily and the exoneration by the CVC had to be considered by the learned CMM and instead of summoning the petitioners, they ought to have been discharged. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in Anirudh Sen vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2006 SCC Online Del. 1362, to contend that when there was no material on the record to connect the petitioners with the commission of the alleged offences, they could not have been summoned. It was also argued that the FIR had been registered for the commission of offences under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the CMM was not the designated court to have dealt with the charge-sheet. Therefore, the summoning order dated 4th November, 2019 was passed without jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, Mr. Anil Grover, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI contended that though the FIR had been registered for the offences under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, however, after due investigations, the charge-sheet was filed for the commission of offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and the learned CMM was fully empowered to deal with the charge-sheet and lacked no jurisdiction.

8. It was further submitted that the sanction was essential for pro