Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, AMIT SHARMA, JJ.
Court On Its Own Motion – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.Ref. 3 of 2021, W.P.(CRL) 388/2022 & CRL.M.A. 3314/2022
Decided on : 28-11-2024
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 154 and 166A of Code of Criminal Procedure - Criminal reference and writ petition regarding FIR registration - The Special Judge dismissed the application for issuance of letter rogatory, stating no cognizable offense was disclosed in the FIR - The High Court clarified that registration of FIR is mandatory if information discloses a cognizable offense, and the police cannot initiate investigation for non-cognizable offenses without a Magistrate's order. (Paras 26-30, 40-52)
(B) Reference under Section 395(2) - The High Court held that a reference can be made at any stage of the criminal process, including during investigation, provided the case is pending before the concerned court. (Paras 12-14)
Key Points: - Registration of FIR is mandatory if information discloses a cognizable offense; non-cognizable offenses require Magistrate approval to investigate. (!) (!) (!) - Magistrates/Courts must remain largely silent spectators regarding investigation until final report; supervision cannot include challenging FIR validity, though they may provide limited assistance (e.g., search warrants) on a case-by-case basis. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - A reference under Section 395(2) Cr.P.C. can be made at any stage of the criminal process, including during investigation, provided there is a case pending before the court and there is a compelling reason; the reference may precede or accompany investigation, not limited to post-charge stage. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present connected cases arise from the same order of dismissal and/or letter of reference dated 4th October, 2021. One is a criminal reference made by the ld. Special Judge, C.B.I Court-20 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi and another is a criminal writ petition preferred by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) against the said order of dismissal.
I. BACKGROUND
3. The said cases arise from a series of allegations regarding corruption that occurred during the execution of certain purchase orders placed for the supply of spare parts by various Public Sector Undertakings (hereinafter ‘PSUs’) including the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (hereinafter ‘HAL’), Oil & Natural Gas Corporation (hereinafter ‘ONGC’), Gas Authority of India (hereinafter ‘GAIL’) to M/s Rolls Royce Plc. (London). The allegations made in the said PE related to certain purchase orders placed to Rolls Royce, London. It is claimed that a source informer of CBI had informed that during the period of 2007-2011, undisclosed commissions amounting to approximately 10-11.3% of the contract value were paid by Rolls Royce Plc. (hereinafter ‘Rolls Royce’) to M/s Aashmore Pvt. Ltd. (Singapore) and M/s Infinity for appointing the latter as a commercial advisor to Rolls Royce in contracts with different PSUs. The informer alleged that these amounts paid as commission to M/s Aashmore Pvt. Ltd. were kickbacks to unknown officials of HAL, ONGC and GAIL involved in the procurement process who illegally aided Rolls Royce in the process of procuring the contract. Based on the source information, the CBI had registered Preliminary Enquiry-PE AC-1 2014 A0005 on 21st March, 2014.
4. Upon initiation of enquiry, as per the PE it was revealed that M/s Rolls Royce Ltd. was prohibited from engaging the services of any intermediary/third party in the supply of materials/spare parts as per the conditions enumerated in the purchase orders and the integrity pact. Thus, the appointment of a commercial advisor was stated to be violative of the terms & conditions of the purchase orders and integrity pact in respect of the supply transactions. Further, it was revealed that such appointments and the payments of commission made with respect to purchase orders of GAIL and ONGC were wilfully concealed by Rolls Royce at the time of the subsequent bid/tender with HAL. Lastly the enquiry officer is stated to have made several requests to M/s Aashmore Pvt. Ltd. and its promoters: Mr. Ashok Patni and Mr. Wolfram Krockow, for providing details of the accounts in which commissions were received from Rolls Royce, however, the said company and individuals did not extend cooperation to the enquiry. Based on the above-mentioned events and information, the enquiry officer prima facie concluded that M/s Aashmore Pvt. Ltd was hiding the corrupt public servants of HAL, ONGC and GAIL involved in the process of procurement and illegal gratification. Thus, the enquiry officer-Additional SP, CBI filed a complaint, based on which the CBI then registered the FIR/RC. The said FIR bearing no. FIR/RC No. AC-1 2019 A0004 is the subject matter of these cases.
5. After the registration of the FIR, the CBI moved an application before the Special Judge, CBI claiming that the payment of commission to M/s Aashmore Pvt. Ltd. by Rolls Royce was illegal and the same was made into three bank accounts in Singapore vis-a-vis HSBC Pvt. Bank, HSBC and United Overseas Bank. The case of the CBI was that, India and Singapore are members of the International Criminal Police Organization (‘INTERPOL’) which enables mutual assistance in criminal matters between members countries. The CBI wanted to collect certain documents from Singapore and also wanted to investigate certain persons.
6. The details of the documents which the CBI wanted to collect from Singapore were the following :
The registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offense; the police cannot investigate non-cognizable offenses without a Magistrate's order.
Point of Law : Dismissal of petition to Quash of FIR – Commission of cognizable offence and pendency of investigation – cannot be quashed.
Investigation proceedings remain valid despite procedural defects if sufficient substantive evidence supports charges, emphasizing the necessity of proper police authorization and hierarchical compli....
The Court emphasized the wide powers of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of an FIR, direct proper investigation, and monitor the same. It also highlighted the need for ....
The accused has no right to a hearing before the registration of an FIR, and anyone can initiate criminal proceedings unless explicitly barred by law.
A preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before registering an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act if a prima facie case exists based on a detailed source information report.
The court confirmed that an FIR under the Essential Commodities Act does not require a Collector's recommendation, and accused have no right to be heard prior to FIR registration.
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
