Delhi High Court
Krishna Murari Bangar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 27 August, 2018
$~6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th August, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 781/2015 and Crl. M.A. 2959-2960/2015
KRISHNA MURARI BANGAR .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Mr.
Shubhankar, Ms. Drishti Aarpalani and Mr.
Sajal jain, Advocates
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, SPP, CBI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner was summoned as accused by the court of the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 31.01.2013, on the
basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr. PC) submitted by the respondent / Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) upon conclusion of investigation into case
registered as RC no.AC-1/2011/A0008 involving offences punishable
under Section 120B read with Sections 217 and 218 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC). He filed the present petition challenging the said
order seeking quashing of the criminal case arising out of the said
charge-sheet.
2. The petition has been pending since 27.02.2015. Meanwhile,
the proceedings before the trial court have continued and, as pointed
out by the Additional Public Prosecutor representing CBI, by order
dated 13.10.2014, the trial court found charge made out for offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 217 and 218 of the IPC against the
petitioner and co-accused Syed Sajid Ali. It has also been pointed out
that co-accused Syed Sajid Ali had assailed the said order dated
13.10.2014 and formal charges framed on 21.01.2015 in its wake -
before the court of Sessions by Crl. Revision No.05/2015. The
criminal revision, however, was dismissed by the Sessions court by a
detailed order dated 07.11.2017.
3. The contentions of the petitioner in the present proceedings
have been that his prosecution on the basis of the evidence gathered
during investigation in the aforementioned FIR is ex facie malicious,
his name being unnecessarily dragged into the proceedings with the
sole motive of causing harassment to him. It is his argument that the
charge-sheet which was presented pursuant to the aforementioned
investigation would not show any intent on his part to be a party to the
criminal conspiracy with the co-accused and further that the evidence
presented fails to establish any understanding between the two persons
who have been arraigned as accused. It is also his argument that no
previous sanction as required under Section 197 Cr. PC for taking of
cognizance had been obtained.
4. As noted at the outset, the petition was filed challenging the
order summoning the petitioner as accused. The case before the trial
court, in the meanwhile, has made substantial progress. It is inherent
in the order whereby charge has been framed by the trial court that it
has found sufficient grounds to raise grave suspicion as to his
complicity in the crimes that include criminal conspiracy with the co-
accused. In this view of the matter, it would not be proper to consider
the contentions of the petitioner with reference to the initial order of
summoning only. The appropriate course for the petitioner would be
to challenge, if he is so advised, the order whereby charge has been
found made out particularly against the backdrop of further fact that
the challenge to the said order by the co-accused has been repelled
even by the revisional court by its judgment dated 07.11.2017.
5. Thus, the petition at hand against the summoning order is
dismissed. The contentions of the petitioner, however, are kept open
and he is given liberty to raise the same by appropriate petition against
the order framing charge to be brought or at the trial in accordance
with law.
6. This disposes of the pending applications as well.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 27, 2018
yg
