Delhi High Court
Naveen Kaushik vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 30 March, 2011
Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: March 01, 2011
Judgment Delivered on:March 30, 2011
+ LPA No. 810 of 2010
Naveen Kaushik ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Vikas Pahwa, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES
DIPAK MISRA, CJ
Being grieved by the order dated 9.1.2006 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(Crl.) No.177/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge
has expressed the view that when framing of charge under the Prevention of
LPA 810/2010 page 1 of 5
Corruption Act, 1988, is interlocutory, the summoning order cannot be
considered as a final order to enable the accused to approach the Court for
quashment of the same.
2. Though maintenance of Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed
in a criminal writ has been raised yet we have thought it apposite to deal
with the controversy without entering into the issue of maintainability.
3. At the very outset, we may produce the order passed by the learned
Single Judge:
"This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for
quashing of FIR, quashing of summoning order and
quashing of chargesheet. The accused/ petitioner is
charged for various offences under IPC and under
Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Legislature in order to curb the tendency of
approaching High Court at the stage of charge, the
moment charge was framed amended the provisions of
Prevention of Corruption Act so that the trial of cases
under Prevention of Corruption Act was not hampered
and stalled by obtaining stays of proceedings before the
trial courts. That does not mean that the Legislature or
the Courts intended to give liberty to the accused to
approach High Court just before framing of charge, when
chargesheet is filed and accused is summoned. This
is contrary to the intention of the Legislature.
Entertaining such petitions defeats the very purpose of
amendment made in Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that under
LPA 810/2010 page 2 of 5
Prevention of Corruption Act order of framing charge
was an interlocutory order. When framing charge was an
interlocutory order, how can summoning order be
considered as a final order giving liberty to approach this
Court with such like petitions. I find no force in this
petition. The petition is hereby dismissed being not
maintainable."
4. On a perusal of the same, it is manifest that the learned Single Judge
has opined that the writ petition is not maintainable. A Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.(Crl.) No.80/2010 (Shri Arun Kumar Jain v. Central
Bureau of Investigation) and other connected matters while dealing with a
reference as regard to the maintainability of a petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and a writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has answered thus:
"33. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we proceed to
answer the reference on following terms:
(a) An order framing charge under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order.
(b) As Section 19(3)(c) clearly bars revision against an
interlocutory order and framing of charge being an
interlocutory order a revision will not be maintainable.
(c) A petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and a writ petition preferred under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India are maintainable.
LPA 810/2010 page 3 of 5
(d) Even if a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure or a writ petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India is entertained by the High
Court under no circumstances an order of stay should be
passed regard being had to the prohibition contained in
Section 19(3)(c) of the 1988 Act.
(e) The exercise of power either under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India should be sparingly and in
exceptional circumstances be exercised keeping in view
the law laid down in Siya Ram Singh (supra), Vishesh
Kumar (supra), Khalil Ahmed Bashir Ahmed (supra),
Kamal Nath & Others (supra) Ranjeet Singh (supra) and
similar line of decisions in the field.
(f) It is settled law that jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227
of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised as a
"cloak of an appeal in disguise" or to re-appreciate
evidence. The aforesaid proceedings should be used
sparingly with great care, caution, circumspection and
only to prevent grave miscarriage of justice.
34. Reference is answered accordingly. The writ
petitions be listed before the appropriate Bench."
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid conclusions, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge has to be set aside and accordingly it is so ordered. The
matter is remitted to the file of the learned Single Judge to be dealt with
regard being had to the reference answered in W.P.(Crl.) No.80/2010 (Shri
LPA 810/2010 page 4 of 5
Arun Kumar Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation) and other connected
matters. There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MARCH 30, 2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Sv/dk
LPA 810/2010 page 5 of 5
