Delhi High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Vallalore Rangaswamy Natarajan on 20 September, 2019
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20.09.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 995/2019
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhil Goel, SPP, CBI with
Ms. Naveen Goel, Mr. Dushyant
Sarna and Mr. Piyo Harold, Advs.
versus
VALLALORE RANGASWAMY NATARAJAN ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 36308-09/2019 (Exemptions)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of accordingly.
CRL.REV.P. 995/2019 and CRL.M.A. 36307/2019 (Stay)
3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to set
aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Ld. Special Judge,
(PC Act) CBI-XIII, Rouse Avenue District Court in Case RC AC-1/2012
(A)/0004 to the extent that it requires the CBI to produce FR-I/Crime File.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FR-I can only be
summoned under exceptional circumstances. This Court has opined in order
dated 26.04.2019 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 729/2018, as follows:
"Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned
orders, I find that as per the mandate of Section 172 of
Cr.P.C., the custody of the diaries has to be with the
Investigating Officer. So, direction of the trial cannot be
sustained. As regards 'FinalReport'- Part 1 is concerned, it
is an internal document of CBI to which access in normal
course is not to be made.
However, under exceptional circumstances, FR-1
can be summoned by the Court for its exclusive perusal, if
necessary but not as a routine. The direction in the
impugned orders to deposit the case diary and FR-1 of all
the pending cases before the Pairavi Officer or learned
Prosecutor is unjustified and is hereby quashed.
Needless to say that the trial court is empowered to
summon the case diaries, as and when required but the
case diaries are not required to be retained as a routine."
5. On perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clearly mentioned that as per
the mandate of Section 172 of Cr.P.C., the custody of the diaries has to be
with the Investigating Officer. It is clearly mentioned that under exceptional
circumstances, FR-I can be summoned by the Court for its exclusive perusal,
if necessary but not as a routine.
6. It is not in dispute that the FR-I can be summoned under exceptional
circumstances, if necessary.
7. On perusal of order dated 01.08.2019, learned Special Judge though
summoned the FR-I, did not disclose as to what were the exceptional
circumstances under which the said FR-I/Crime File was summoned.
8. In view of the above, without going into the controversy further, I
hereby set aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2019 to the extent of
summoning of FR-I/Crime File and remand the case back to the learned
Special Judge to pass order afresh by giving reasons as to what are the
exceptional circumstances due to which FR-I/Crime File is required.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
PB
