Raj Kumar Tyagi vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7416 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR
 
Court No. - 44
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30746 of 2016
 
Applicant :- Raj Kumar Tyagi
 
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru Director, C.G.O.& Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Misra
 

 
Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit Misra, learned counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation. 

By means of this application, the applicant Raj Kumar Tyagi has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the further proceeding arising out of FIR No. RC.6(S)/03, under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 471 IPC PS CBI/SCB-II, DLI, district New Delhi, pending before the Special Judge (CBI), Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, district Ghaziabad.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that an FIR was lodged on 28.10.2003 with the allegations that two certified copies of the High Court orders dated 17.4.2003 and 21.5.2003 received by post, appears to be forged and genuineness of the said orders was got verified and on enquiry it was revealed that both the orders were forged and fake.

Pursuant to the charge sheet, the trial was concluded into conviction and applicant was sentenced  to undergo for two years imprisonment, against which the applicant preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, which is pending.

It is further submitted that there is no judicial order for investigation by CBI. As per Section 6 of Delhi Police Establishment Act, permission from the State Government is mandatory, therefore, investigation by CBI is without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 

Shri Amit Misra, learned counsel for the CBI opposed the prayer of the applicant inter alia on the ground that this application is not maintainable in view of section 465 Cr.P.C.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State represented by D.S.P. SBCD Chennai Vs. K.V. Rajendran, 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 278 has held that inherent powers cannot be exercised for doing that which is specially prohibited by the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Simrikha Vs. Dolley Mukherjee, AIR 1990 SC 1605 has held that the prohibition contained in section 362 is absolute, after the judgement is signed even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same.

On perusal, I find that the applicant has been convicted by the  Special Judge (CBI), Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, district Ghaziabad and appeal against the said  order is pending, this matter cannot be adjudicated by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. If the applicant has any grievance, he may raise the same before the appellate court. 

The application does not bear any substance. It is accordingly rejected.

Order Date :- 6.12.2016

Ishrat