Delhi High Court
Abhinav Ramkrishna vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 January, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8114/2012
ABHINAV RAMKRISHNA ..... Petitioner
Through : Petitioner in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. P.K. Sharm,
Standing Counsel for CBI with Mr.
Anil Kr. Singh, Advocate for R-2
Mr. Neeraj Chaudhri, CGSC and Mr.
R. Singh, Advocate for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 02.01.2013
As many as 7 FIRs were registered in two police districts of Delhi in
respect of various offences alleged to have been committed by the office
bearers of an NGO, namely, Anand Jan Sewa Society. Charge sheet has
been filed before the concerned ACMM in respect of the case registered
vide FIR No.270/2010 at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi, whereas
the remaining cases are still pending investigation. Alleging defects and
procedural lapses in investigation of those cases, the petitioner is seeking a
direction to Govt. of NCT of Delhi to transfer investigation of the said cases
to Central Bureau of Investigation or Serious Fraud Investigation Office.
The petitioner is also seeking appointment of a senior advocate as Special
Public Prosecutor for these cases and a committee to supervise the
sale/disposal of the properties of accused persons besides disbursal of the
amount realized from the sale of such properties.
2. Admittedly, the investigation in the above referred cases is being
conducted by Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police, which is a special
unit meant primarily to investigate economic offences such as those alleged
to have been committed by the office bearers of Anand Jan Sewa Society. A
Writ Petition being WP(Crl.) 292/2012 was filed by one Mrs.Meena Gupta,
one of the victims of the said crimes, seeking transfer of investigation of the
pending cases to CBI. The Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single
Judge of this Court vide order dated 10th October, 2012, and the order seems
to have been accepted by the petitioner in that case, inasmuch as it was not
challenged before a higher forum. No other victim of the crime has sought
investigation by an agency other than the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi
Police.
3. In State of West Bengal and others v Committee for Protection of
Democratic' Rights, West Bengal and others [(2010) 3 SCC 571), the
Supreme Court while upholding the power of the High Courts, in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to direct investigation of a
cognizable offence even without consent of the State within whose territory
the offence is committed, struck the following note of caution:
"69. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to the
CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned,
although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to
decide whether or not such power should be exercised
but time and again it has been reiterated that such an
order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely
because a party has levelled some allegations against the
local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised
sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where
it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill
confidence in investigations or where the incident may
have national and international ramifications or where
such an order may be necessary for doing complete
justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise
the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases
and with limited resources, may find it difficult to
properly investigate even serious cases and in the process
lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory
investigations.
71. In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services,
U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya [(2020) 5 SCC 521, this
Court had said that an order directing an enquiry by the
CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after
considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion
that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling
for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar
agency. We respectfully concur with these observations."
4. This is not the case of the petitioner before this Court that
investigation into the offences alleged to have been committed by the officer
bearers of Anand Jan Sewa Society has interstate or international
ramifications. This is also not the case of the petitioner that Economic
Offences Wing of Delhi Police does not possess the tools and the manpower
required for carrying investigation into the offences subject matter of the
above referred FIRs. The said Wing is a unit created by Delhi Police
specially for carrying out investigation of cases involving commission of
economic offences and the police personnel manning this unit, on account of
their experience in handling such cases come to acquire the special
knowledge and skill which are required for carrying out an efficient and
expeditious investigation into such matters. We, therefore, are satisfied that
no reasonable ground for transferring the investigation, either to Central
Bureau of Investigation or to Special Investigation Fraud Office is made out.
However, considering the averments that there are thousands of
person who are the victims of the crime alleged to have been committed by
the officer bearers of Anand Jan Sewa Society, it would be imperative that
the investigation is not only just and fair, but is also conducted efficiently
and completed expeditiously. We, therefore, deem it appropriate that the
investigation should be carried out under direct supervision of a senior
police officer. We accordingly direct that the investigation in the pending
cases shall be carried out expeditiously, under the supervision of the Joint
Commissioner of Police controlling the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi
Police. The Government of NCT of Delhi would also consider appointing a
competent Public Prosecutor for prosecution of those cases which result in
filing of charge-sheets.
The writ petition stands disposed of with these directions.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
JANUARY 02, 2013
'ks/rd'
