Delhi High Court
C B I vs Kapil Walia & Anr on 4 May, 2017
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 4th May, 2017
+ TR.P.(CRL.) 84/2016
CBI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Special
Public Prosecutor for CBI with
Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate
versus
KAPIL WALIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Advocate
with Mr. Ayushman Kotwal,
Advocate for DHC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The applicant Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had
registered a case described as RC-DAI-2011-A-0014 Delhi for
investigation into offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with
Sections 420/467/468/471/477-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The investigation led to report under Section
173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) being
submitted in the court of Special Judge (PC Act) - CBI at Saket
Courts, New Delhi, seeking closure of the case on the ground that
though case had been made out, the requisite sanction for prosecution
of the public servants who were involved had been declined and,
therefore, the case had to be closed, such report having been described
as closure report.
2. The report was considered by the Special Judge, who vide order
dated 28.04.2015 directed the records of the case including the said
closure report to be placed before the court of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate (CMM) of South District at Saket Court Complex, inter
alia, observing that it would be for said court to consider the report
and then to proceed with the matter in accordance with law in so far as
it related to commission of offences punishable under IPC, leaving the
subject of necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. also to be
considered by said court.
3. The CMM (South) statedly was of the opinion that the court
presided over by him was not competent to entertain the said case
since closure reports submitted by the CBI disclosed commission of
offences within the jurisdiction of Police Station R.K. Puram, which
fell under the jurisdiction of a different District (New Delhi District).
4. The CBI then moved transfer applications before the court of
Sessions Judge (South District) at Saket Courts, New Delhi but the
said court by order dated 22.12.2015 declined any relief on the said
transfer application stating that the court of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, New Delhi was not the court within the Sessions division
of District South as was requisite for purposes of exercise of power of
transfer by her in terms of Section 408 (1) Cr.P.C.
5. It is against the above backdrop that the present petition seeking
transfer of the closure report to the court of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, New Delhi at Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi
has been moved.
6. On 03.11.2016, the matter was heard and the submissions made
on behalf of CBI (applicant) and the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (the
respondent) were noted. It appears, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, representing the CBI, was not aware at that stage that after
amendment of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), by
subsequent notifications, Delhi presently stands divided into eleven
metropolitan areas, each being a separate Sessions Division headed by
an independent Sessions Judge. There are separate courts of Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate functional in each of the said Sessions
Division (metropolitan areas). The court, on the basis of deficient
information available at that stage, had also issued notice to the High
Court of Delhi for assistance. Pursuant to the said directions, Mr. Raj
Shekhar Rao, Advocate has appeared to represent administrative side
of this court.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on all sides, this court is of
the opinion that since till date cognizance has not been taken and
process has not been issued against any individual on the two closure
reports in terms of Section 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. no notice to any
individual who may in future come up to be summoned as accused is
required in these proceedings.
8. Since orders passed by the court of Special Judge (PC Act) at
South District of the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South),
as also the order on the application for transfer passed by the Sessions
Judge (South District) reveal that the offences appear to have been
committed within the jurisdiction of Police Station R.K. Puram, the
proper course would be to transfer the matter to the file of Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi at Patiala House Courts
Complex, in as much as the Police Station R.K.Puram is stated to fall
within the jurisdiction of New Delhi District metropolitan area.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. The file of the closure report shall accordingly be made over by
the court presently holding the said record to the court of Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate (New Delhi) at Patiala House Courts
Complex, after securing the presence of the Public Prosecutor
representing the CBI, and fixing an appropriate date of appearance
before the transferee court. The Court of CMM (New Delhi) may,
within his discretion, retain the matter on his board or allocate to any
appropriate court of Metropolitan Magistrate under his control, subject
to general or special orders, if any, presently in position to regulate the
distribution of judicial business.
11. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MAY 04, 2017
vk
