SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 10966

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J
RAJEEV JHAWAR – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-1018/2024



Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rajiv Bhatnagar, Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Mr. Anshuman Mohit Chaturvedi, Mr. Uddeshya Singh, Mr. Satyam Sharma, Ms. Aditi, Ms. Ritivika Poswal, Mr. Kaul Rustom Khan, Mr. Sangat Pati and Mr. Suhail Ahmed, Advocates. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal and Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Advocates and Mr. Devendra Kumar Gupta, AEO

The issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants is justified when an accused repeatedly fails to comply with court summons, balancing personal liberty against the need for judicial process.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10, 12 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - Quashing of Non-Bailable Warrants - The applicant sought to quash NBWs issued against him for failing to appear before the Trial Court despite multiple summons. The court emphasized the necessity of physical appearance and the applicant's repeated non-compliance, leading to the issuance of NBWs. (Paras 10, 29, 34)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The court noted that the issuance of NBWs is justified when an accused deliberately avoids court proceedings, balancing personal liberty with societal interest. (Paras 33, 36)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, involved in a corruption case, failed to appear before the Trial Court despite being summoned multiple times, leading to the issuance of NBWs.

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court had provided several opportunities for the applicant to appear physically, which he failed to utilize, justifying the issuance of NBWs.

Issues: Whether the NBWs issued against the applicant were justified given his repeated absence from court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's consistent non-appearance warranted the issuance of NBWs, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGEMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. CRL.M.C. 1018/2024 Page 2 of 20

1. The present application has been preferred on behalf of the applicant Rajeev Jhawar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing and setting aside of impugned order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-19 (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in Complaint Case No. 08/2023, arising out of ECIR/DLZO- I/24/2022, titled as „Enforcement Directorate vs NMP Sinha and Ors.‟ issuing Non-Bailable Warrants (‘NBW’) against the petitioner and proceedings thereafter.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. On 02.10.2020, the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) had registered RC AC-1/2020/A0004, at CBI/AC-I, New Delhi under Sections 7-A/8/9/10/12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’). This was registered pursuant to receipt of an information that Sh. N.M.P. Sinha i.e. Ex. SP, CBI, New Delhi, in conspiracy with Sh. Vinay Jalan, Sh. Parth Jalan, Sh. Rajiv Jhawar (present applicant) i.e. M.D. of M/s. Usha Martin Ltd., Sh. Raj Kumar Kapoor i.e. Authorized Signatory of M/s. Usha Martin Ltd., and other unknown persons, was trying to influence the investigation of the case of CBI registered vide RC17(E)/2016 dated 20.09.2016 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act and Section 420/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), by EO-II Branch, New Delhi against I.D. Paswan, the then Director (Mines), Govt. of Jharkhand, M/s. Usha Martin Ltd. and other unknown persons. The allegations were that CRL.M.C. 1018/2024 Page 3 of 20 Sh. N.M.P. Sinha was the Supervisory Officer of the aforesaid case before his retirement on 31.08.2020, and Sh. Raj Kumar Kapoor was representing M/s. Usha Martin Ltd. on behalf of Sh. Rajiv Jhawar. As alleged, they were actively pursuing the case through Sh. Vinay Jalan who had assured them that he will get the investigation moulded in their favour through his contacts in CBI. On 23.09.2020, Sh. N.M.P. Sinha had met Sh. Vinay Jalan at hotel ITC Maurya, New Delhi for three-four hours and in his presence, Sh. Vinay Jalan had asked his son Parth Jalan to prepare a reply to the summons issued by CBI to M/s. Usha Martin Ltd. and asked him to meet Sh. N.M.P. Sinha on his next visit to New Delhi. Sh. N.M.P. Sinha also had a conversation with Sh. Parth Jalan. It was informed to CBI that Sh. Vinay Jalan will deliver a bribe of Rs. 20 lakhs to Sh. N.M.P. Sinha to get the work done.

3. During investigation, a trap was laid and the accused persons namely Sh. N.M.P. Sinha and Sh. Vinay Kumar Jalan were arrested and an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs.5,12,000/- was recovered respectively from their possession. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 01.12.2020 against the accused persons namely (1) Nripendra Mohan Prasad Sinha @ N.M. P. Sinha, (2) Vinay Kumar Jalan, (3) Rajiv Jhawar, (4) Raj Kumar Kapoor, (5) M/s. Usha Martin Ltd. and (6) Hemant Joshi, under Sections 120B of IPC read with Sections 7/7A/8/9/10/12 of PC Act and substantive offences under Section 9 and 12 of PC Act.

CRL.M.C. 1018/2024 Page 4 of 20

4. Since, Section 120B of IPC and Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of PC Act are Scheduled offences under the PMLA, enquiries were initiated under PMLA against the accused persons.

5. On the basis of the RC registered by the CBI, an ECIR No. RNSZO/17/2020 dated 29.10.2020 was recorded by Ranchi Sub- Zonal Office (now Zonal office), and the investigation in this case was initiated by Ranchi office. However, the ECIR was transferred to Delhi Zonal Office-1 and new ECIR No. DLZO-I/24/2022 was assigned on 18.05.2022. Thereafter, the investigation was carried out by the Delhi team of Directorate of Enforcement.

6. The case of Directorate of Enforcement, in brief, is that the applicant Rajeev Jhawar, Managing Director, M/s Usha Martin Ltd., on behalf of the accused company, had agreed to give a bribe of Rs. 50 lakhs to Sh. N.M.P Sinha and as a first instal

                                      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                      1
                                      2
                                      3
                                      4
                                      5
                                      6
                                      7
                                      8
                                      9
                                      10
                                      11
                                      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                      supreme today icon
                                      logo-black

                                      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

                                      qr

                                      Scan Me!

                                      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                                      whatsapp-icon Back to top