Delhi High Court
Chetan Prakash Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 April, 2017
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement delivered on: 19th April, 2017
+ W.P.(CRL) 971/2013
CHETAN PRAKASH SHARMA
..... Petitioner
Through : Mr Anil K. Aggarwal, Adv. with Mr
Sunil Jain & Md. Imteyaz, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through : MrNarender Mann, SPP with
MrManoj Pant, Adv. for CBI.
Mr Kirtiman Singh, CGSC for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(Oral)
Crl. M.A. Nos.6375, 16200, 16666, 19214/2014 and 8275/2015
This petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 24.07.2013.
Thereafter several applications were filed to monitor the progress of
the issues that were brought to the notice of the Court. The
petitioner/applicant approached this Court stating that the contents of
the FIR reveal information with regard to offences committed by
several public servants that was sought to be subject matter of
blackmail by certain individuals. This Court by its judgment directed
the CBI to look into the matter which has eventually resulted in the
registration of FIR RC.DAI-2013-A-0019 on 28.1.2013. CBI has
registered these offences under Section 120-B/383 IPC read with
Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)d of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It is submitted by CBI that pursuant to its investigation, a final report
recommending closure of the case was filed by 16.11.2016. It
however, also concedes that till date the closure report has not been
accepted and the matter is under consideration by the Special Judge
appointed for the purpose. The next date of hearing is 24.04.2017.
counsel for the petitioner/applicant urge that proper supervision of the
CBI is essential in this case and suitable directions are to be made
from time to time to ensure that complete justice is done. It is also
pointed out that during the course of inquiry and investigation the
petitioner/applicant was handled roughly; reliance is placed upon the
copies of the statements recorded from him by CBI. This Court is of
the opinion that with the filing of the final report the jurisdiction to
consider it and pass appropriate orders is with the Special Judge who
has all powers - by virtue of Section 190 Cr.P.C. either to accept it
wholly or in part or reject it completely. Furthermore, in case the
Special Judge is of the opinion that any further action or inquiry or
investigation is required, adequate powers under the Criminal
Procedure Code exist. In case the petitioner has nothing to add, it is
open to him to assist the Special Judge. Learned counsel submitted
that the status report filed by CBI in these proceedings is not part of
the Special Judges's record. This Court is of the opinion that if the
petitioner wishes to participate before the Special Judge, he may
move an appropriate application which may be considered on its
merits - counsel for the CBI has no objection to his participation.
Likewise it is open to the petitioner to rely upon the status reports in
these proceedings - liberty is granted for this purpose. In the event
the petitioner is unable to effectively assist the CBI Court or move an
application, it is open for him to seek adjournment for the next date of
hearing which may be considered and reasonably granted. The
applications are disposed of.
The order made on 15.10.2014 shall continue to remain in force
to be appropriately monitored or altered/continued by the concerned
CBI Court in regard to the exigencies of the situation.
All the applications are disposed of.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
YOGESH KHANNA, J
APRIL 19, 2017
VLD
