Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

 CR No. 440396/16                                          "CBI vs. Atul Khanna"
CR No. 440347/16                                   "Lalit Mohan Madhan Vs. State"


Criminal Revision No.440396/16

19. The present revision petition has been filed under section 397 Cr.P.C. by the State/ CBI against the order dated 26.02.2016 passed by the Ld. CMM by which the respondent Atul Khanna was discharged. It is averred that the impugned order was contrary to the facts, material evidence, statements and also against the well settled law. It is submitted that as per the case of prosecution Shri Lalit Mohan Madhan had entered into an agreement to purchase the property from Shri Kewal Joshi. There was a dispute about the acquisition of the property by DDA with Shri Kewal Joshi and the Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari had directed the DDA to offer the land to Shri Kewal Joshi in the first instance and restrained DDA from disposing of the land by way of sale without offering the same to Shri Kewal Joshi. The appeal filed by DDA was also dismissed by the Ld. District Judge. A petition filed for execution of the decree by Shri Lalit Mohan Madhan was dismissed as premature. The other facts as stated in the reply to the revision petition filed by Shri Lalit Mohan Madhan were stated. It is averred that the Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that the signing of MOU with Shri Lalit Mohan Madhan was not a wrong act in itself as the MOU stated that only the respondent Atul Khanna would deal or negotiate with DDA on behalf of Shri Lalit Mohan Madhan. It is averred that the Ld. Trial Court failed to take into consideration the narration in the MOU wherein it was mentioned that the second party had approached CR No. 440396/16 "CBI vs. Atul Khanna"

 CR No. 440396/16                                          "CBI vs. Atul Khanna"
CR No. 440347/16                                   "Lalit Mohan Madhan Vs. State"

28. The Ld. Counsel for Shri Atul Khanna had argued that at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie evidence was required to be considered. It was submitted that the Ld. CMM rightly held that merely because certain letters/ representations were prepared in the office of Shri Atul Khanna, it did not give rise to any inference that he was in a criminal conspiracy with Shri Lalit Mohan Madhan and there was nothing to suggest that Shri Atul Khanna was aware about the false allotment letter accompanying the letters/ representations which were genuine documents so his role could not be doubted. It was also rightly held that the signing of the MOU with Shri Lalit Mohan Madhan was not a wrong act in itself as the MOU only spoke that he would deal or negotiate with DDA on behalf of Shri Lalit Mohan Madhan. Moreover, it was observed in the impugned order that frequent exchange of calls between the accused persons was not sufficient to infer criminal conspiracy against them and hence the Ld. CMM rightly reached the conclusion that no prima facie case was made out against Shri Atul Khanna. It was submitted that as per the charge sheet, the CFSL expert had opined that the CPU collected from the office of Shri Atul Khanna contained certain words but no allegations had been made qua the documents retrieved from the CPU which may contain the said words, hence there were no clear allegations against him. It was argued that the powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. are very limited and could be exercised only to an order which was grossly erroneous CR No. 440396/16 "CBI vs. Atul Khanna"

 CR No. 440396/16                                        "CBI vs. Atul Khanna"
CR No. 440347/16                                 "Lalit Mohan Madhan Vs. State"

India Infoline Ltd. (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 505; M.P. Singh Sahni v. State 2013 (3) JCC1816 and G. Sagar Suri v. State of UP (2000) 2 SCC 636. The law in this regard is well settled.

30. The Ld. Counsel for Shri Atul Khanna had argued regarding the scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. that the powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. are very limited and could be exercised only to an order which was grossly erroneous on the face of it. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460 wherein it was observed that the powers vested in the court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. were for satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case and the jurisdiction should be exercised when there is palpable error, non-compliance with provisions of law, decision is completely erroneous or where judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. The said proposition of law is also well settled. The Ld. Counsel had further argued that the revision petition had been filed by CBI only against the discharge of Shri Atul Khanna and not for the discharge of accused Anil Wadhawan and Gurpreet Singh and evidence could not be split to grant benefit to some co-accused when all the accused were on the same footing and deserved parity. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Laxman and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan CR No. 440396/16 "CBI vs. Atul Khanna"