JAGDISH KUMAR DHINGRA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagdish Kumar Dhingra, the petitioner herein vide this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ,,the Code) is seeking quashing of charge sheet No. 03 dated 23.12.2008 as regards him in C.C.No. 115/2008 under Sections 120-B IPC read with Section 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d), P.C.Act, 1988 filed in the court of Special Judge, CBI (P.C.Act), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi titled as CBI Vs. Yoginder Kumar & Ors. as also the cognizance order dated 29th January, 2009 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, on the ground that there is no material in the charge sheet which could prima facie justify the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the either of the aforesaid offences.

(2.) Learned Sh. Dinesh Mathur, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the charge sheet filed under Sections 120-B IPC read with Section 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) P.C.Act, 1988. It is submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is not a public servant, as such Section 7, 11 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) P.C.Act are not applicable to the petitioner as those provisions are specific to the corrupt acts committed by a public servant and there is no material on record to prima facie show that the petitioner either abetted the commission of any of aforesaid offences or he entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit these offences with his co-accused persons, including the public servant Yoginder Kumar, Inspector, CBI and despite of that, the learned Special Judge, without due application of mind, has routinely taken cognizance of the offences mentioned in the charge sheet. Learned counsel submitted, since there is no prima facie evidence against the petitioner to show his involvement in either of the offences mentioned in the charge sheet, he is entitled to quashing of charge sheet as well as of the order taking cognizance against him.

(3.) Learned Shri Harish Gulati, Advocate appearing for the respondent CBI has, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection that the present petition under Section 482 of the Code is misconceived for the reason that the charge sheet against the petitioner has already been filed in the court where the matter is listed for arguments on charge. Learned counsel submitted that as per Section 239 of the Code, the petitioner has a legal right to make his submissions before the court concerned against the framing of charge and if the court, on consideration of the material on record and his submissions, considers the charge against the petitioner to be groundless, he would be discharged. Thus, it is argued that the present petition is an endeavour on the part of the petitioner to short circuit the procedure for prosecution in a warrant trial as provided in the Code. Learned counsel contended, since an equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to press for his discharge in the trial court, there is no justification for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of State of A. P. Vs. Gaurishetty Mahesh & Ors in Criminal Appeal No.1252 of 2010 arising out of an S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3061 of 2008.