Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Syed Abu Dojana - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) 2852 of 2022, Crl.M.A. 24811-24812 of 2022
Decided On : 30-11-2022
The court confirms that under Sections 91(1) and 91(2) of the Cr.P.C., personal attendance is required for compliance in investigations, while ensuring the right to notice against coercive actions.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 91(1) and 91(2) - Quashing of notice - The petitioner sought to quash a notice directing personal attendance to provide documents in an ongoing CBI investigation, arguing compliance was fulfilled by document submission - The court held that personal attendance can be mandated by the investigating officer in accordance with Sections 91(1) and 91(2) of the Cr.P.C. and notice must be followed - The court mandated CBI to give prior notice before any coercive action against the petitioner. (Paras 2, 4, 8, 9)
(B) Exemptions - The applications for exemptions of the petitioner have been allowed subject to just exceptions. (Para 1).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a managing director of a construction company, argued against a notice demanding personal attendance for an ongoing CBI investigation concerning job recruitment exchange for land. The petitioner asserted prior compliance in document submission but apprehended coercive actions.
Findings of Court:
The notice was upheld as valid; compliance to attend in person was mandated despite document submission.
Issues: Does the CBI have the authority to compel personal attendance for document production?
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that Sections 91(1) and 91(2) permit the investigating officer to require personal attendance for compliance, reinforcing the procedural authority of CBI while ensuring the petitioner’s rights were respected by requiring advance notice for any coercive measures.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition prayers for relief from cbi notice. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's compliance regarding document submission. (Para 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. cbi's stance on petitioner's documentation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. court analysis of compliance with cr.p.c. sections 91(1) and 91(2). (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. conclusion on the petition without addressing merits. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 24811-24812/2022 (exemption)
Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 2852/2022
1. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:
A. Issue an appropriate Writ, Order, Direction especially in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing Notice dated 14.11.2022, issued by the Respondent.
B. Issue of an appropriate Writ, Order, Direction especially in the nature of Certiorari thereby directing the Respondent to follow the provisions of S. 160 Cr. P.C. while making the Petitioner to join investigation in the matter.
C. In the interim, during the pendency of the present Petition, pass necessary orders and directions, thereby staying the operation of the impugned Notice requiring the attendance of the Petitioner at New Delhi.
D. In the alternative, during the pendency of the present Petition, Issue of an appropriate Writ, Order, Direction especially in the nature of Certiorari directing the Respondent to conduct the examination of the Petitioner either at the residence of the Petitioner or through any video conferencing applications such as Cisco/Zoom/or any other application which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier a notice dated 21.10.2022 was served upon the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. with the direction to produce certain documents/information as contained in the same. Learned senior counsel submits that in pursuance to the same, the petitioner has responded vide communication dated 04.11.2022. Learned senior counsel submits that further these documents were sent along with the mail dated 14.11.2022 and thereafter CBI has now sent a fresh notice dated 14.11.2022. He further submits that this notice does not specify the provisions of law under which the same has been sent. Learned senior counsel submits that though the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency but he apprehends that the CBI may take some coercive action against him in contravention of the law.
3. Mr.D.P.Singh, learned Special PP for the CBI submits that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands. He submits that in fact notice dated 14.11.2022 is in continuation of earlier notice dated 21.10.2022. Learned Special PP submits that the petitioner has yet not supplied the entire documents as he was required to supply vide notice dated 21.10.2022. The petitioner has also not attended the office of the CBI as required.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 91 (2) of Cr.P.C. if the party from whom the documents have been sought to be given, has supplied the documents the compliance under Section 91 (1) stands completed. Learned senior counsel submits that his client cannot be insisted upon for attending the CBI office in pursuance to the notice 14.11.2022. The notice dated 21.10.2022 is as follows:
No 4964/RC2202022E0007/EO-II/CB/New Delhi dated 21.10.2022
To,
Sh. Syed Abu Dojana
Managing Director
Meridian Construction (India) Limited
305, Sukriti Apartment S.P.Verma Road
Patna-800001.
E-mail: mcilimited@yahoo. In
Sub: Investigation of case RC2202022E0007 of CBI EO-II New Delhi regarding providing job in Railways in exchange of land-reg.
Sir,
The subject case has been registered against Sh. Lalu Prasad Yadav, the then Railway Minister and others in the matter of recruitment/engagement of substitutes in Group-D during the period 2004-09, in exchange of lands transferred in the names of his family members and associates.
2. In connection
