Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A catena of verdicts has been relied upon equally on behalf of the petitioner, whereby it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Courts at Delhi and at Mumbai would have concurrent jurisdiction in the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.01.2022 14:55:13 digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

matter both in relation to the alleged commission of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code as well as those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is the avowed contention on behalf of the respondent no.1 to the effect that the territorial jurisdiction in the instant case would lie at Mumbai in as much as the alleged commission of offences of forgery and fabrication of public documents in relation to the purported arrest that was sought to be made, were done allegedly by the public servant Sumeet Kumar at Mumbai and thus there is no question of registration of any Zero FIR at Delhi.

It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the registration of the Zero FIR in the instant case by the petitioner is also only as per averments made in the petition itself to overcome the difficulty as mentioned in the petition itself that the State of Maharashtra does not give a general consent for registration of cases under the PC Act.

It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the petitioner having been aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.12.2021 of the learned Vacation Judge/RADC could have filed a revision petition in relation to which it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on para 57 of Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency, (AIR OnLine 2021 SC 246), which reads to the effect: -

"57. Thus, an order under Section 167 is purely an interlocutory order. No revision is maintainable. A petition under Section 482 cannot be ruled out."

A further submission is made on behalf of the respondent no.1 by the learned legal aid counsel for the respondent no.1 that the parameters of the registration of the Zero FIR at the instance of the victim are not applicable to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.01.2022 14:55:13 digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

It is the avowed contention on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no.1, an LDC in CBI, ACB, Mumbai in connivance with respondent no. 2 and unknown others was involved in illegal activities of falsification and forgery of documents with an intention and attempt to obtain undue advantage from M/s. Indiabulls and committed theft in respect of the property in the possession of the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Mumbai and hence a regular case was registered u/Sections 120-B, 381, 465, 466 and 474 of the IPC and Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 at CBI, ACB, Mumbai vide FIR No.RC0262021A0000 dated 21.12.2021 as a Zero FIR and was transferred through email from the SP, CBI, ACB, Mumbai to the PS, CBI, ACB, Delhi and the instant case RC-DAI-2021-A-0044-CBI-ACB- DLI was registered on 21.12.2021 u/Sections 120-B, 381, 465, 468 and 474 of the IPC and u/Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 on the basis of the complaint Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.01.2022 14:55:13 digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.