Delhi High Court
Subodh Gupta & Ors vs Cbi & Anr on 10 July, 2018
$~25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 10th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 2555/2018 & Crl.M.A. 9080-82/2018
SUBODH GUPTA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Harsh Kumar Sharma, Ms.
Vaibhavi Sharma, Mr. Pratik Gaur, Mr.
Rohit Gaur, Mr. Pulkit jain & Mr. Vivek
Punia, Advs.
versus
CBI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. PP
for CBI along with Mr. Prateek
Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. By order dated 27.02.2015 on the file of criminal case (CC No.
132/01) registered on the basis of report under Section 173 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on conclusion
of investigation by the respondent/CBI in RC no. 1 to 3
(E)/98CBI/SIU-IX/New Delhi, the Special Judge under Prevention of
Corruption Act rejected the contention of the petitioners that he did
not have the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case and also found
sufficient grounds to put the petitioners, and other co-accused, on trial
on charge for offences punishable under Section 120B read with
Section 409/420/467/468/471,477A and 201 IPC and Section 13 (2)
read with Section 13 (1) (c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
2. The petitioners, by the present petition, seek quashing of the
said proceedings primarily on the ground that Punjab National Bank,
which is the complainant herein had entered into one time settlement
and, therefore, the further prosecution on criminal complaint is
uncalled for, challenge also being made to the continuation of the
proceedings before the Special Judge, Delhi on the ground that he did
not have the jurisdiction.
3. During the course of hearing, however, it was brought out that
the criminal case in which the impugned order was passed has already
reached the stage of final adjudication, the evidence for the
prosecution having been recorded, the petitioners and the co-accused
who are facing the said trial as accused having been examined under
Section 313 Cr. PC and the stage of defence evidence also since
concluded, the case being ripe for final submissions to be heard for
which the matter is coming up before the court of the Special Judge
within this month, this position having been brought out by the co-
accused in their separate petitions - Crl. M.C. Nos.3779/2015 and
1049/2017 - which were also listed today and have been disposed of
by a separate order.
4. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Special Judge on
27.02.2015 reveals that the issue of jurisdiction has been considered
but rejected, in view of this court rightly so, with reference to the
evidence presented with the charge-sheet by the prosecution revealing
that though a substantial part of the incriminating acts of commission
or omission were indulged in by the accused persons in Agra, Uttar
Pradesh, the demand drafts statedly forged were presented in Delhi for
securing wrongful gain. This, by itself, is sufficient to reject the
argument of lack of jurisdiction in the court of the Special Judge at
New Delhi. The plea to this effect, thus, was rejected by the trial court
through the impugned order passed at the stage of framing of charge
for sound reasons.
5. The one-time settlement with the concerned bank wherein the
petitioners may have discharged their civil liability is no reason to put
an end to the prosecution for the aforementioned offences in as much
as it is not a private dispute between two individuals. The case
involves economic offences having a bearing on the financial and
economic well being of the State with implications that go beyond the
domain of civil dispute between private parties and, therefore, not a
case where this court ought to exercise its inherent power under
Section 482 Cr. PC. [see Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat,
(2017) 9 SCC 641].
6. For above reasons, the petition and the applications filed
therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 10, 2018
nk/yg
