B. L. AGRAWAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for quashment of FIR lodged by respondent No.1 for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code(for short 'IPC') read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are these, that two cases were registered by CBI against the petitioner in the year 2010. In one case registered by CBI/ACB, Bhilai, charge-sheet has been filed whereas in another case registered by respondent No.3 in Delhi was under investigation. It is alleged that the petitioner approached one Mr. Bhagwan Singh resident of Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P. seeking to get relief from the cases registered against him. Said Mr. Bhagwan Singh introduced the petitioner to one Syed Burhanuddin @ O.P. Sharma @ O.P. Singh resident of Hyderabad, Telangana, who claimed himself to be a person from the office of the Prime Minister. Assurance was given by said Mr. Syed Burhanuddin to the petitioner that the matter will be settled in his favor for which he will have to pay illegal gratification Rs.1.5 Crore. It is alleged that petitioner agreed and also paid Rs.1.5 crore in installments to Mr. Syed Burhanuddin for the purpose of getting relief in the cases registered against him. Some payment were made in the account of Mr. Sanjay Tapariya by way of Hawala payment, whereas for the rest of the payment, it is alleged that petitioner proposed that he will make remaining payment in the form of 2kg gold to which Mr. Burhanuddin agreed. On the basis of the informations received, FIR was lodged by CBI, ACU-V/, AC-II, CBI HQ, New Delhi.

(3.) The main ground urged on behalf of petitioner is this, that the investigation being conducted by CBI, New Delhi is illegal, misconceived and bad in law and the same needs to be quashed. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, that CBI, New Delhi has no authority to investigate this case because no special consent has been obtained by the respondent/CBI for investigation in the case, as per provision of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (for short 'the Act'). Referring to the Notification of Chhattisgarh State dated 19.7.2012 published in State Gazette, it is submitted that by this notification, State Government had made it clear that extension of jurisdiction under the Act shall continue to be given only on the merits of each case that is on case to case basis, therefore, it was the responsibility of CBI to obtain special consent from the State which the CBI has not obtained. Reference has been made to the case of Virbhadra Singh and another vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine 7747, Delhi High Court, in which it was clearly held that to make investigation in the area of the concerned State, the consent of the said State shall be essentially required.