High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed seeking a direction to CBI to register an FIR under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC read with Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to investigate and prosecute the accused persons for siphoning off the public money under the garb of illegal and void ab initio agreement.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Petitioner stated that Clause 151 of Article of Association of the DMRC stipulates that an agreement should be signed by two Directors or by one Director and Secretary of DMRC. He stated that the impugned agreement was signed by a Director (Works) alone, which is contrary to Clause 151 of the Article of Association of DMRC. He further stated that the impugned agreement is contrary to public policy and Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act and is an outcome of fraud.
He stated that under the termination clause of the impugned agreement, DMRC, which is a PSU, is liable to compensate Respondent No.2, DAMEPL in case of termination of the contract by either of the parties. He further submitted that under the impugned agreement, DMRC does not have any right to get compensation even if the contract is terminated by the Respondent No.2. Petitioner stated that the validity of the impugned agreement has not been challenged by DMRC which reflects that a fraud is being played upon the State and is an indication of the corruption prevalent in all the transactions relating to the impugned agreement.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that even if the argument that the impugned agreement is not signed by the competent authority is accepted, then also it would not constitute an offence to be investigated by the CBI.
HC opined that a CBI investigation should be ordered in the rarest of rare cases. Keeping in view the fact that an arbitral award arising in pursuance to the contract in question has been scrutinised by a learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court, the Court opined that the present matter does not call for any direction in the writ jurisdiction by this Court to direct the CBI investigation. HC further stated that the prayer for quashing of the execution proceeding is contrary to law and completely untenable.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “examination of the present complaint by the CBI cannot be expected to be completed in two days. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is premature, as CBI has not had reasonable time to examine the complaint. This Court is confident that CBI shall examine the complaint filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that it is open for the CBI to take a decision which it deems fit and appropriate in the present case."
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain
Case Title: Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Details: W.P.(CRL) 444/2022 & C.M.Nos.3850-3851/2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
