Delhi High Court - Orders
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Punjab National Bank Through Sh Sanjay ... on 14 October, 2022
Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2408/2022 & CRL.M.A 21035/2022(stay)
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anuram S. Sharrma, SPP CBI
with Mr.Prakash Airan, Ms.Harpreet
Kalsi, Mr.Ripudaman Sharma and
Mr.Abhishek Batra, Advocates.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK THROUGH SH SANJAY CHAWLA
OR SUCCEEDING OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
ORDER
% 14.10.2022 CRL. M.A. 21036/2022 (Exemption)
1. By way of the present application, the petitioner is seeking exemption from filing the certified copies of the annexures.
2. The application is allowed and accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 2408/2022
3. The present petition is filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside of order dated 25.04.2022 & 28.04.2022 passed by the Court of Sh. Pulastya Pramachala, Special Judge CBI-13, (PC Act), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi in FIR/RC No. RC0032022A0020 of CBI, ACB, Delhi.
4. The counsel appearing for petitioner stated that the respondent is a proforma party.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:18.10.2022 17:12:215. The perusal of Order dated 25.04.2022 reflects that after perusing the FIR, the concerned Trial Court had framed following queries to be put to Public Prosecutor and Investigating Officer to respond in writing :-
a. What was the basis to invoke jurisdiction of this Court and what was the basis to add Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, in the FIR?
b. What is the status of compliance of Section 17A of PC Act, in view of addition of Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, in the FIR.
6. The perusal of order dated 28.04.2022 reflects that the application under Section 93 Cr.P.C for issuance of search warrants filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by the concerned Trial Court and FIR and related records were ordered to be remanded in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi and liberty was also given to the petitioner/CBI to file application under section 93 Cr.P.C before the competent Court.
7. CBI registered the FIR No. RC0032022A0020 on 21.04.2022 for the offences under Section 120 B read with sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, against private persons and unknown public servants on the basis of complaint dated 19.04.2022 made by Sh.Sanjay Chawla, AGM, P&B, New Delhi regarding the fraud committed by M/s Electronic Plaza with erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce branch, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.
8. The Trial Court in the impugned orders 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, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:18.10.2022 17:12:21 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.
9. It is also reflected from the perusal of order dated 28.04.2022 that para 10 of the complaint also dealt with accountability of role of the bank officials but the Trial Court observed that the complainant did not give the idea about the complicity of two named bank official and the specific role of these two bank officials is not mentioned in the complaint. It was further observed that if the complaint was found to be silent in respect of the role of any public servant then how could the complaint was found disclosing the relevant facts necessary for constituting the offences under section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act in FIR.
10. The counsel for petitioner argued that in the present complaint, the role of two bank officials is also identified as such, the CBI was competent to invoke provisions under Section 17 A of the PC Act and the orders dated 25.04.2022 & 28.04.2022 were passed without any justification and is based on conjecture and surmises.
11. FIR pertains to serious bank fraud which requires detailed investigation and issue 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 orders dated 25.04.2022 & 28.04.2022 passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the orders dated 25.04.2022 & 28.04.2022 are set aside as the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:18.10.2022 17:12:21 trial court was under the statutory obligation as per mandate of section 93 Cr.P.C. to issue search warrants.
12. 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.
13. The present petition alongwith pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J OCTOBER 14, 2022/tp Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:18.10.2022 17:12:21