Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Union Bank Of India Through Sh. Sanjay ... on 24 August, 2022

Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain

Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain

                          $~44
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(CRL) 1909/2022 & CRL.M.A. 16539-40/2022
                                 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION         ..... Petitioner
                                             Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP-CBI
                                                       with Mr. Prakash Airan and
                                                       Ms.Harpreet Kalsi, Advocates.

                                                    versus

                                 UNION BANK OF INDIA THROUGH SH. SANJAY
                                 MANOCHA OR SUCCEEDING OFFICER,
                                 UNION BANK OF INDIA                ..... Respondent
                                              Through: None.

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
                                              ORDER

% 24.08.2022

1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Court of Sh. Pulastya Pramachala, Special Judge CBI-13 (PC Act), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi in FIR bearing No. RC0032022A0015 .

2. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that the respondent is a proforma party.

3. The perusal of the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 reflects that the application under section 93 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for issuance of search warrants was dismissed by the concerned trial Court.

4. CBI registered FIR bearing no. RC0032022A0015 on 11.04.2022 under section 120B read with sections 420/468/471 IPC and under section Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:24:38 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption,1988 Act (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act") on the basis of a complaint dated 01.12.2021 made by Sanjay Manocha, DGM, Union Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, New Delhi regarding the alleged fraud committed by M/s M.R. Chains Pvt. Ltd. in Overseas Branch of Earstwhile Corporation Bank and its Overseas Branch.

5. The trial Court in the impugned order observed that as per the mandate of section 154 Cr.P.C., there should be an information regarding the commission of any cognizable offence for registration of FIR and if there is no such information regarding the commission of any cognizable offence, FIR cannot be registered. The trial Court also observed that after the amendment in the PC Act in the year 2018, the investigation with respect to the offence punishable under the PC Act against any public servant could only be undertaken after compliance of section 17-A of the PC Act i.e. with the previous approval of the concerned government.

6. The trial Court also observed that in FIR, one sentence was added in the last that the „role of unknown public servant, if any, may be investigated during the course of investigation‟ and did not accept the said sentence in the FIR as information, regarding the commission of offence punishable under various provisions of the PC Act.

7. The trial Court after discussing various legal issues and judicial decisions, observed that there was no legal justification for CBI to incorporate section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act in FIR and that too without compliance of section 17-A of the PC Act and due to this reason, the jurisdiction of the special Court created under PC Act cannot be invoked. The concerned trial Court has declined to issue search warrants as per the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:24:38 mandate of section 93 of Cr.P.C.

8. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the CBI registered FIR on 11.04.2022 under various provisions of IPC and PC Act as detailed in FIR and the complaint, which was the basis of registration of the FIR is still under investigation. CBI is likely to investigate whether any public servant was involved in the alleged commission of the offence and it will take time to ascertain the role of public servant in the commission of the alleged offence. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that as no specific public officer was named in the FIR as such, there was no occasion for CBI to invoke provisions under section 17A of the PC Act and the order dated13.04.2022 is passed without any justification and is based on conjecture and surmises.

9. FIR pertains to serious bank fraud which requires detailed investigation whether any public servant was involved in the commission of the alleged offences, is a matter of investigation and it cannot be said, at this stage, that there was no legal justification to incorporate section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act in FIR. The impugned order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 is set aside as the trial court was under the statutory obligation as per mandate of section 93 Cr.P.C. to issue search warrants.

10. The case is remanded back to the concerned Court with the direction to issue search warrants on the application filed by the CBI as per law to conduct further investigation and also to collect relevant and important incriminating material against the proposed accused.

11. The present petition alongwith pending applications, if any, stands accordingly disposed of.

12. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance.

SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J AUGUST 24, 2022/Ik/sd Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:24:38