Central Bureau of Investigation v. State Bank through Rajinder Kumar Dhingra

1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.04.2022, whereby, the learned Special Judge (PC Act), inter alia held to have no jurisdiction in the matter. Aggrieved of this, the Central Bureau of Investigation has assailed this order before this Court.

2. Sh. Anupam S. Sharma, learned Spl. P.P. for CBI submits that the FIR No.RC0032022A0019/CBI/ACB/New Delhi was lodged in this case on 21.04.2022 under Sections 120B r/w Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) and the investigation was at the nascent stage. During the course of investigation, an application for issuance of search warrants under Section 93 Cr.P.C. was moved for seizure of incriminating documents/articles for conducting searches, search warrants.

3. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that in the FIR it was specifically mentioned in the list of accused persons that there are other unknown public servants and private persons besides the four accused mentioned in the petition. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that by rejecting the application under Section 93 Cr.P.C., learned Spl. Judge has basically stalled the investigation. Learned Spl. P.P. is also aggrieved of the observations made by the learned Special Judge that PC Act has been invoked in anticipation rather than on the basis of the allegations leveled in the complaint.

4. This Court considers that the learned Special Judge has made the observation in quite haste without taking into consideration the fact that the investigation was at nascent stage. It is not uncommon that the investigating agencies register the FIR on the information of a cognizable offence. The identity of the accused persons in many cases is ascertained during the course of the investigation.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that even the learned Special Judge in the haste of getting rid of the case left the application under Section 93 Cr.P.C. undecided. The impugned order cannot stand in the eyes of law and VERMA is set aside. The observations of the learned Special Judge in particular that the PC Act has been invoked in anticipation rather than on the basis of the allegations leveled in the complaint cannot stand scrutiny of law as CBI is yet to investigate the matter. Such observations seem to have been made at too early stage.

6. With these observations, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue with a direction to keep it in his Court or assign it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction for conducting the proceedings in accordance with law as well as for disposal of the application under Section 93 of Cr.P.C.

7. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 29, 2022 VERMA