Delhi High Court
S P Saxena vs Cbi on 27 September, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 01.09.2017
Judgment Pronounced on: 27.09.2017
+ W.P.(CRL) 1490/2011
S P SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.P. Mehta, Advocate.
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, SPP for
CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
'Cr.PC') seeking quashment of the order dated 06.08.2010
passed by learned Special Judge, CBI in CC No. 10/2008 vide
RC No. 6(S)/2006/CBI/SCR-III while dismissing the
application dated 27.11.2009 of the petitioner, inter-alia,
praying that the proceedings in the case are not sustainable.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a
Division Bench of this court in W.P. No. 10066/2004 in the
order dated 21.03.2006 granted six weeks time to CBI to
investigate the matter in terms of its earlier order in relation to
102 co-operative group housing societies. He submitted that
one such Co-operative Group Housing Society namely Chinar
Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited (in short 'Chinar
CGHC Limited') assailed the said order of the Division Bench
dated 21.03.2006 by SLP (C) No. 7637/2006 and vide order
dated 04.08.2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that
there shall not be any arrest or registration of criminal cases
without the leave of the High Court.
3. He submitted that in violation of the order of the Apex Court,
the respondent lodged an FIR No. RC-6(S)/2006/CBI/SCR-
III/ND on 21.09.2006 under Section 120B read with Section
420/467/468/471 of IPC and 13 (1) (d) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and
others without seeking the leave of this court. He submitted
that in further violation of order of the Apex Court a charge-
sheet was also filed by the respondent on 19.08.2008. The
petitioner brought this fact to the notice of learned Special
Judge, CBI by filing an application on 27.11.2009, which was
dismissed by the learned Special Judge, CBI on 06.08.2010. He
submitted that since no permission of this court has been
obtained by the CBI/respondent to register the case against the
petitioner in terms of the order of the Apex Court dated
04.08.2006, the proceedings filed before the learned Special
Judge, CBI by way of charge sheet stands vitiated. He
submitted that the order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the learned
Special Judge, CBI and the charge sheet filed on 19.08.2008
emanating from the FIR No. RC-6(S)/2006/CBI/SCR-III be
quashed.
4. Per contra, learned Special PP for CBI submitted that by
initiating such proceedings the petitioner is trying to mislead
this court. The impugned FIR No. RC-6(S)/2006/CBI/SCR-III
registered against the petitioner is not in connection with the
affairs of M/s. Chinar CGHC Limited, a petitioner before the
Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 7637/2006. He submitted that order
of the Apex Court dated 04.08.2006 of the Apex Court in the
said SLP has nothing to do with the petitioner or the FIR in
question bearing No. RC-6(S)/2006/CBI/SCR-III.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and perused the record. I
have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions
of the parties.
6. For the disposal of this petition, it would be pertinent to refer
the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.08.2006,
which reads as under: -
"ORDER
Heard both sides.
This Special Leave Petition has been against an interim order.
The matter is concerning with a co-operative Group
Housing Society. Counsel for the petitioner submits that
already the flats are ready but in view of the pending
enquiry the society is not able to allot the houses. Counsel
for the C.B.I. submits that the enquiry is continuing and it
has not become final and the counsel for the Registrar, Co-
operative Societies submits that they also suspect something
about the same.
In our opinion, it is for the High Court to take a final decision
in the matter. In the meanwhile, there shall not be any
arrest or registration of criminal cases without the leave
of the High Court. The High Court may take an early
decision as the flats are lying vacant. We request the High
Court to take an early decision at least within a period of
two months, in view of the above direction.
The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly."
7. A bare perusal of the order of the Apex Court shows that the
matter before it was pertaining to and concerning the affairs of a
particular group housing society i.e. M/s. Chinar CGHS
Limited. With regard to the affairs of this particular co-
operative group housing society, it was pointed out that flats
were ready but in view of the pending enquiry the society was
not able to allot the houses and learned counsel for the
Registrar, Co-operative societies also suspected something
about the same. After hearing the parties, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed that it is for the High Court to take a final
decision in the matter i.e. the matter pertaining to M/s. Chinar
CGHS limited and that is why the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
further directed that there shall not be any arrest or registration
of criminal cases without the leave of the High Court and it was
observed that this court may take an early decision as the flats
were lying vacant.
8. It is also noticeable that the order of learned Special Judge, CBI
dated 06.08.2010 was assailed by the petitioner before the Apex
Court by way of SLP (Crl.) No. 8670-8671/2011. However, on
12.09.2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition
as withdrawn with liberty to seek appropriate relief from the
High Court in accordance with law.
9. Therefore, when the impugned FIR and consequent charge-
sheet filed before the learned Special Judge, CBI has nothing to
do with M/s. Chinar CGHS Limited, there was no occasion for
the CBI to obtain the leave of this court before registering the
criminal case against the petitioner. As such there is no merit
found in the petition.
10. The petition is dismissed accordingly.
(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
"shailendra"//
