Full Text
Translation output
V
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3862/2012
B K UPPAL Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3862/2012
B K UPPAL Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
CBI Respondent
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel for
CBI
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel for
CBI
CRL.M.C. 4324/2012
ANAND PRAKASH SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Umesh Shandilya, Advocate
ANAND PRAKASH SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Umesh Shandilya, Advocate
VERSUS
CBI Respondent
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel for
CBI and Mr. Manoj Ohri, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel for
CBI and Mr. Manoj Ohri, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
18.04.2013 With the consent of both the sides, the above captioned two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Impugned order of8^ August, 2008 directs framing ofcharges for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC, Section
471 read with Section 120-B ofIPC and for the substantive offence under
CrI. M.C. Nos.3862/2012 &4324/2012 Pagel 2013:DHC:6648
V
Section 120-B of/PC as well.
Learned counsel for petitioners assail the impugned order on the ground that petitioners have been exonerated in the departmental proceedings and so their criminal prosecution is unwarranted. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon a decision of a coordinate benchof this Court in Crl.M.C. No.1833/2007 AjayKumar Tyagi v. State rendered on 25^ August, 2008. On the other hand, respondent's counsel places reliance upon decisions in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar
Tyagi (2012) 9 SCC 685; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi
Shankar Srivastava, IAS &Another (2006) 7 SCC 188 and Amit Kapoor
V. Ramesh Chander &Another f2012) 9 SCC 460 to urge to the contrary.
At the hearing, it was disclosed that recording of prosecution's evidence is almost complete and only investigating officer remains to be examined. However, I find that the revisionagainst order framing charges is not maintainable in view of decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LPA NO.810/2010 titled Naveen Kaushik v. Central Bureau of
Investigation rendered on30^ March, 2011.
In view of aforesaid, both these petitions are dismissed as being not maintainable.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 18,2013 s Crl M.C. Nos.3862/2012 &4324/2012 Page 2
2013:DHC:6648
18.04.2013 With the consent of both the sides, the above captioned two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Impugned order of8^ August, 2008 directs framing ofcharges for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC, Section
471 read with Section 120-B ofIPC and for the substantive offence under
CrI. M.C. Nos.3862/2012 &4324/2012 Pagel 2013:DHC:6648
V
Section 120-B of/PC as well.
Learned counsel for petitioners assail the impugned order on the ground that petitioners have been exonerated in the departmental proceedings and so their criminal prosecution is unwarranted. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon a decision of a coordinate benchof this Court in Crl.M.C. No.1833/2007 AjayKumar Tyagi v. State rendered on 25^ August, 2008. On the other hand, respondent's counsel places reliance upon decisions in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar
Tyagi (2012) 9 SCC 685; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi
Shankar Srivastava, IAS &Another (2006) 7 SCC 188 and Amit Kapoor
V. Ramesh Chander &Another f2012) 9 SCC 460 to urge to the contrary.
At the hearing, it was disclosed that recording of prosecution's evidence is almost complete and only investigating officer remains to be examined. However, I find that the revisionagainst order framing charges is not maintainable in view of decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LPA NO.810/2010 titled Naveen Kaushik v. Central Bureau of
Investigation rendered on30^ March, 2011.
In view of aforesaid, both these petitions are dismissed as being not maintainable.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 18,2013 s Crl M.C. Nos.3862/2012 &4324/2012 Page 2
2013:DHC:6648
JUDGMENT