Full Judgment Text
2022:DHC:816-DB
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 444/2022 & C.M.Nos.3850-3851/2022
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person with Ms.Suman,
Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with
Mr.Kamal R.Digpaul and Ms.Pinky
Yadav, Advocates for UOI.
Mr.Rahul Mehra, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Sanjay Law, standing counsel for
R-5.
Mr.Anupam S.Sharma, SPP-CBI with
Mr.Prakash Airan and Mr.Harpreet
Kalsi, Advocates.
rd
% Date of Decision: 03 March, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been 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
th
agreement dated 25 August, 2008. Petitioner also seeks quashing of
execution proceedings pending before the learned Single Judge of this Court
W.P.(Crl.) 444/2022 Page 1 of 4
2022:DHC:816-DB
in EX.APPL.OMP (ENF.)(COMM) 145/2021, EX.APPL.(OS) 1008/2021,
1282/2021 and 38/2022.
2. Petitioner, who appears in person, states 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 states that in
the present case, the impugned agreement was signed by a Director (Works)
alone, which is contrary to Clause 151 of the Article of Association of
DMRC.
3. He further states that the impugned agreement is contrary to public
policy and Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act and is an outcome of fraud.
He states 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 states 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.
4. Petitioner states 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. Petitioner seeks
registration of an FIR and investigation by the CBI.
5. This Court is of the opinion 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.
6. This Court is further of the opinion that a CBI investigation should be
ordered in the rarest of rare cases. The Supreme Court in the case of State of
W.P.(Crl.) 444/2022 Page 2 of 4
2022:DHC:816-DB
West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights,
West Bengal & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571 has held as under:-
| “ | Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise | |
|---|---|---|
| that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the | ||
| Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in | ||
| mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these | ||
| constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the | ||
| said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the | ||
| question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in | ||
| a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid | ||
| down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised | ||
| but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is | ||
| not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party | ||
| has levelled some allegations against the local police. This | ||
| extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and | ||
| in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide | ||
| credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the | ||
| incident may have national and international ramifications or | ||
| where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice | ||
| and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be | ||
| flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, | ||
| may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases | ||
| and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with | ||
| unsatisfactory investigations. | ” |
7. 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, this Court
is of the opinion that the present matter does not call for any direction in the
writ jurisdiction by this Court to direct the CBI investigation.
8. This Court is further of the view that the prayer for quashing of the
execution proceeding is contrary to law and completely untenable.
9. A perusal of the paperbook also reveals that the petitioner had filed its
W.P.(Crl.) 444/2022 Page 3 of 4
2022:DHC:816-DB
th th
complaint dated 18 February, 2022 with the CBI on 19 February, 2022
only. Within two days of filing of complaint with CBI, the present writ
petition has been filed.
10. In the opinion of this Court, 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. With the
aforesaid observations, the present writ petition along with pending
applications stands dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
MARCH 03, 2022
KA
W.P.(Crl.) 444/2022 Page 4 of 4