The absence of prosecution sanction does not invalidate proceedings if prima facie evidence indicates malafide actions by officials during official duties.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of Complaint Case no. 17929/2016 (earlier numbered as no. 329/2001) titled 'Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. V.K. Pandey & Anr.', Police Station Paschim Vihar as well as the orders dated 16.09.2019 and 17.09.2019 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.10.2000 at about 5.00 AM, the petitioners alongwith other officers of the CBI, supported by subordinate staff, had reached the premises of respondent no. 2 at B- 1/134, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, in relation to investigation of a CBI case number RC S19/1999/E0006. The private guard at the gate was asked to open the door and the CBI officers entered the premises. After entering the compound, attempts were made by the petitioners to get the house opened by ringing the doorbell and making phone calls but no one opened the door of the house. In the meantime, through one of the windows on the ground floor, it was observed that respondent no. 2 and his brother Vijay Kumar Aggarwal were moving on the ground floor of the house with certain files and papers in their hands. Despite hearing the doorbell, they did not open the front door and went into the kitchen, lit the gas stove and destroyed papers. At about 5.30 AM, petitioners forcibly entered the premises of respondent no. 2 in order to discharge their official duties. Respondent no. 2, who was not co- operating with the investigation in case FIR bearing No. RC S19 1999 E0006 and had not responded to notices issued by the petitioners under Section 160 Cr.P.C., was arrested on 19.10.2000. Respondent no. 2 was in CBI custody from 19.10.2000 to 23.10.2000 and was in judicial custody from 23.10.2000 to 27.11.2000. Respondent no. 2 was released on bail on 27.11.2000.

3. That during pre-summoning evidence recorded before the learned Trial Court, respondent no. 2 had examined three witnesses including himself. On 11.01.2005, learned Trial Court had taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 323/427/448 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed on 31.08.2017.

4. That the respondent no. 2 had filed a Civil Contempt Petition No. 336 of 2001 dated 30.07.2001 before this Court wherein it was alleged that the guidelines laid down by this Court in case D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 had not been complied with at the time of arrest of respondent no. 2 and proceedings should be initiated against the petitioners by this Court. However, vide order dated 28.08.2003, this Court had dismissed the Civil Contempt Petition No. 336 of 2001 by a detailed judgment. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 had preferred SLP (Civil) No. 19591 of 2003 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2004 and the judgment and order dated 28.08.2003 passed by this Court was upheld. Moreover, respondent no. 2 had filed the present complaint case No. 329 of 2001 dated 17.10.2001 under Sections 166/427/323/120B IPC before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi during the pendency of the Civil Contempt Petition No. 336 of 2001.

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSELS

5.