SUSHANT MUTTREJA vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 2806

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 2806

$~52 to 55 & 97 to 104
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
CRL.M.C. 3061/2024 & CRL.M.A. 11824/2024

SUSHANT MUTTREJA

.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms.
Ekta Chaudhary and Mr. Aman Priya
Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

.....Respondents

Through:
Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State.
Mr. Karan Grover, Advocate for the
Proposed Impleaders.

+
CRL.M.C. 3070/2024 & CRL.M.A. 11867/2024
(53) NISHANT MUTTREJA

.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms.
Ekta Chaudhary and Mr. Aman Priya
Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

.....Respondents

Through:
Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State.
Mr. Karan Grover, Advocate for the
Proposed Impleaders.

+
CRL.M.C. 3635/2024 & CRL.M.A. 13924/2024
(54) NISHANT MUTTREJA AND ANR.

.....Petitioners
Through:
Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms.
Ekta Chaudhary and Mr. Aman Priya
Singh, Advocates.

Ms. Gayatri Nandwani and Ms.
Mudita Sharda, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

.....Respondents
Through:
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the
State.

+
CRL.M.C. 4823/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18033/2024
(55) SUSHANT MUTTREJA

.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms.
Ekta Chaudhary and Mr. Aman Priya
Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the
State.

Mr. Aditya Sharma & Mr. Manoj
Rajpoot, Advocates for R-2.

+
CRL.M.C. 4446/2024 & & CRL.M.A. 16834/2024, CRL.M.A.
16835/2024
(97) NISHANT MUTTREJA

.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms.
Ekta Chaudhary and Mr. Aman Priya
Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the
State.

Mr. Divyam Dhyani, Advocate with
Insp. N.K. Singh, SI Ganga Pal.

+
CRL.M.C. 4447/2024
&
CRL.M.A. 16836/2024,
CRL.M.A.
16837/2024
(98) NISHANT MUTTREJA

.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms.
Ekta Chaudhary and Mr. Aman Priya
Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the
State.

Mr. Divyam Dhyani, Advocate with
Insp. N.K. Singh, SI Ganga Pal.

+
CRL.M.C. 4450/2024
& CRL.M.A. 16846/2024, CRL.M.A.
16847/2024
(99) SUSHANT MUTTREJA

.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms.
Ekta Chaudhary and Mr. Aman Priya
Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the
State.

Mr. Divyam Dhyani, Advocate with
Insp. N.K. Singh, SI Ganga Pal.

+
CRL.M.C. 4451/2024
& CRL.M.A. 16850/2024, CRL.M.A.
16851/2024
(100) SUSHANT MUTTREJA

.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms.
Ekta Chaudhary and Mr. Aman Priya
Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the
State.

Mr. Divyam Dhyani, Advocate with
Insp. N.K. Singh, SI Ganga Pal.

+
CRL.M.C. 4452/2024
& CRL.M.A. 16852/2024, CRL.M.A.
16853/2024
(101) SUSHANT MUTTREJA

.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms.
Ekta Chaudhary and Mr. Aman Priya
Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the
State.

Mr. Divyam Dhyani, Advocate with
Insp. N.K. Singh, SI Ganga Pal.

+
CRL.M.C. 4455/2024
& CRL.M.A. 16861/2024, CRL.M.A.
16862/2024
(102) NISHANT MUTTREJA

.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms.
Ekta Chaudhary and Mr. Aman Priya
Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the
State.

Mr. Divyam Dhyani, Advocate with
Insp. N.K. Singh, SI Ganga Pal.

+
CRL.M.C. 4458/2024
& CRL.M.A. 16869/2024, CRL.M.A.
16870/202
(103) NISHANT MUTTREJA

.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms.
Ekta Chaudhary and Mr. Aman Priya
Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the
State.

Mr. Divyam Dhyani, Advocate with
Insp. N.K. Singh, SI Ganga Pal.

+
CRL.M.C. 4459/2024
& CRL.M.A. 16873/2024, CRL.M.A.
16874/2024
(104) SUSHANT MUTTREJA

.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Tushar Agarwal, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms.
Saumya Yadav, Mr. Amit Yadav, Ms.
Ekta Chaudhary and Mr. Aman Priya
Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the
State.

Mr. Divyam Dhyani, Advocate with
Insp. N.K. Singh, SI Ganga Pal.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

Advocates:
SHIVANGI SHARMA

ORDER

% 19.07.2024 1. Reply on behalf of the State is not on record. Learned APP for the State is directed to ensure that the reply is placed on record. Response to the reply, if any, be filed within two weeks from today.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the short question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether there can be two parallel agencies investigating the very same offence or not. He draws attention of this Court to a Judgment passed by the Apex Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, (2019) 5 SCC 266 wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:

“ 32. Again, sub-section (2) of Section 213 of the 2013 Act does not speak of any period for which the other investigating agencies are to hold their hands, nor does the provision speak of any retransfer of the relevant documents and records from SFIO back to the said investigating agencies after any period or occurring of an event. For example, under Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (“NIA Act”, for short) the Agency (NIA) can be directed by the Central Government to investigate the scheduled offence under the NIA Act and where such direction is given, the State Government is not to proceed with any pending investigation and must forthwith transmit the relevant documents and records to the Agency (NIA).

But under Section 7 of the NIA Act, the Agency may, with previous approval, transfer the case to the State Government for investigation and trial of the offence.

33. The very expression “ assign ” in Section 212(3) of the 2013 Act contemplates transfer of investigation for all purposes whereafter the original investigating agencies of the Central Government or any State Government are completely denuded of any power to conduct and complete the investigation in respect of the offences contemplated therein. The idea under sub-

section (2) is complete transfer of investigation. The transfer under sub-section (2) of Section 213 would not stand revoked or recalled in any contingency. If a time-

limit is construed and contemplated within which the investigation must be completed then logically, the provisions would have dealt with as to what must happen if the time-limit is not adhered to. The statute must also have contemplated a situation that a valid investigation undertaken by any investigating agency of the Central Government or the State Government which was transferred to SFIO, must then be retransferred to the said investigating agencies. But the statute does not contemplate that. The transfer is irrevocable and cannot be recalled in any manner.

Once assigned, SFIO continues to have the power to conduct and complete investigation [ The decision of this Court in Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116, para 16 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 873, though in a different situation, laid down that consent once given by the State Government under which investigation was handed over to CBI, could not be recalled or rescinded by the State Government and it is CBI which would be competent to complete the investigation.] . If that be so, can such power stand curtailed or diminished if the investigation is not completed within a particular period. The statute has not prescribed any period for completion of investigation. The prescription in the instant case came in the order of 20-6-2018. Whether such prescription in the order could be taken as curtailing the powers of SFIO is the issue.”

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Trial Court is virtually directing the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) to continue investigation where the Apex Court has taken a decision that once SFIO has been appointed as Investigating Agency all other agencies appointed by the State or the Central Government is denuded of its powers. He states that the Trial Court is proceeding further because of the directions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document