The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of SHO, ACB vs Vijay Kataria consisting of Justice Amit Sharma reiterated that since the Magistrate’s order is a judicial order, he should give reasons, however brief, why he was inclined to order investigation notwithstanding the reports filed by the petitioner.
Facts:
This petition u/s 482 read with section 483 of CrPC sought the setting aside of an order passed by learned Special Judge (PC-Act) – 06, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Vijay Kataria v. SHO Anti-Corruption Branch. Upon a complaint instituted on behalf of the respondent herein u/s 156(3) of CrPC, the learned Special Judge had directed the SHO, Anti-Corruption Branch to investigate and register an FIR under the relevant sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PCA”) against the persons found to be guilty of the conspiracy, as alleged by the complainant, i.e., the respondent herein. The petitioner also asked that pending proceedings be quashed.
Procedural History:
The Delhi Jal Board ("DJB") launched a tender for laying clear water transmission mains from Sonia Vihar to several Delhi districts. Larsen and Toubro completed construction in 2004. ("L&T"). In 2006, the respondent filed a complaint with the Central Vigilance Commission ("CVC"). The DJB ruled in its report dated 09.10.2006 that the charges were unjustified. CVC evaluated DJB's findings and closed the complaint in 2008. The defendant filed a section 156(3) CrPC suit against DJB and L&T in 2009, alleging contract violations. The complaint alleged forgeries and extra, unwarranted payments. Contractors allegedly received the security payment without completing the task to hurt the government. CPWD manuals were allegedly violated when awarding tenders, raising the cost from Rs. 47.5 crores to Rs. 170 crores. This led to excessive government spending and unlawful gains for DJB officials. Further pipeline construction irregularities were alleged.
The petitioner herein (Anti-Corruption Branch of the Delhi Police) submitted various status reports, stating that the allegations made in the complaint were vague and not substantiated. Still, the learned Special Judge issued the impugned decision and asked the ACB SHO to file an FIR under IPC along with PCA and probe the case promptly.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: It was argued that the findings in the impugned order were not legal because the learned Special Judge had ordered registration of FIR and investigation nearly three years after the complaint was filed and despite findings in various status reports that the allegations in the complaint were baseless and no offence was made out. It was also argued that the challenged order was taken without thought and that the learned Special Judge did not record any reasons for disagreeing with the status reports for ordering FIR.
Observations of the Court:
So far as regards the maintainability of this petition was concerned, the Bench noted that the SHO, ACB had not filed this petition in his personal capacity. It concurred with the view that the view taken by the AT and the Commercial Court did not require any interference u/s 34 of the A&C Act. Relying on Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr., it opined that the impugned order could not survive as there was no sanction under section 19(1) & 19(3) of the PCA:
“It would be a matter of propriety, that in cases where the status reports are called for by the Court concerned, before exercising power u/s 156(3) of CrPC, the same should be duly considered.”
It further opined that the impugned order should have considered the status reports filed by the petitioner before passing the directions assailed herein. The learned Special Court should have given reasons to disagree with the reports filed by the petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
This petition was partly allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Special Judge (PC-Act) – 06, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Vijay Kataria v. SHO Anti-Corruption Branch was set aside.
Case Title: SHO, ACB vs Vijay Kataria
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma
Case No: CRL.M.C. 2364/2011, decided on 23rd December 2022
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Tripathy
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Vikas Arora
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
