VIJAY AGGARWAL Vs. STATE NCT OF DELH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delhi Special Police Establishment, commonly known as Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), is a special police force constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946). Initially, the said police force was setup by the Central Government for the purpose of investigating offences of bribery and corruption connected with the departments of the Central Government. Having regard to the useful work of this force, its sphere and jurisdiction was extended not only to the offences relating to person and property under the Indian Penal Code and various other statutes committed anywhere within the territory of the country. Over the period, CBI has emerged as one of the premier investigating agencies of the country by virtue of its track record of detecting, investigating and prosecuting some of the most important, complex and intricate criminal cases of the country. The citizens of the country and the courts regard it to be a specialized investigating agency equipped with skilled investigators and most modern and sophisticated infrastructure. In fact, the people look up to CBI for the investigation of most heinous, complex and intricate criminal cases. Hundreds of petitions are filed in various High Courts and the Apex Court seeking entrustment of investigation of criminal cases to CBI on the premises that the investigation carried out by the local police or its specialized wings or other investigating agencies have failed to perform their task in a just fair, proper and impartial manner or these agencies not possessing the requisite skill or having failed to workout the crime and book the offenders. The courts have in umpteen number of cases have allowed such prayers and have entrusted the investigation of criminal cases to CBI by reposing great faith in this organization. The personnel who man this premier organization are either recruited directly or are drawn from various State police forces or Central Police organizations having regard to their impeccable record of work and conduct in those forces/organizations. The personnel of this organization are usually treated in high esteem on account of those qualities and skill and proven record. However, any organization, howsoever high it may be, is after all manned by human beings who are not always infallible. Instances are not rare when the CBI personnel were also caught on wrong foot and their conduct commented upon adversely by the courts. The present case tends to highlight such like conduct of the two officers of CBI which conduct in the reckoning of the petitioner will constitute certain criminal offence(s).

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for a writ/direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.1/State (NCT of Delhi) to register FIR against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for having committed offences under Sections 506/341/342/166 IPC and to launch prosecution against them in accordance with law and also to initiate suo moto action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against them. The petition has been filed with the averments and allegations that the petitioner was arrested by the CBI on 19.10.2000 in a case of disproportionate assets registered against his brother, namely, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, an Indian Revenue Service officer on the strength of cooked up story made by the CBI with ulterior motives. The petitioner applied for grant of bail before the Special Judge, Delhi and it is alleged that during the course of arguments on the bail application, the court of Special Judge was deliberately and intentionally mislead by CBI as a result of which the application of the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected. However, later on the Special Judge having come to know the actual facts of the case supported by the documentary evidence filed along with the bail petition, granted bail to the petitioner vide an order dated 27.11.2000. The said order was conditional subject to the petitioner joining the investigation and also contained some directions for the CBI. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was summoned by respondent No.2 at the behest and instance of respondent No.3 without the prior permission/approval of the Special Judge for 7.06.2001 and 11.06.2001 for purposes unconnected with the investigation of the aforesaid case and for oblique purpose of coercing, compelling and forcing the petitioner to ensure that his brother Ashok Kumar Aggarwal withdraws a complaint earlier lodged by him against respondent no.2 and 3 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. It is alleged that when the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 on 7.06.2001 at about 12:10 hours in compliance of the notice dated 6.6.2001 served upon him on the preceding night, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to keep sitting in duty officer's room. On being inquired about the purpose for his being summoned, respondent No.2 disclosed to the petitioner that he has summoned him to keep the close watch on his movements so that in case of urgency, he is available at his disposal and further direction that petitioner should remain present in Delhi all the time and should not leave Delhi without seeking his permission for next two weeks. The petitioner was served with another notice for his appearance in the office of CBI on 11.06.2001 by 3.00 P.M. and when in compliance of the said notice, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 in his office on 11.06.2001, the petitioner reminded respondent No.2 that he was issuing the notice for his appearance in violation of the order dated 27.11.2000 passed by the Special Judge and also showed him a copy of the said order but respondent No.2, V.K. Pandey got furious and rolled out the copy of the order and threw the same on the face of the petitioner and uttered : - HARAM ZADEY, BAHEN....... (vulgar abuses) TU HAMEN KANOON SIKHANE AYAA HAI? YAHAN PAR TO HAMARA KANOON CHALTA HAI AUR YEH CBI OFFICE HAI, KOI ADALAT NAHIN HAI.?

(3.) The petitioner was directed to stand outside the room of respondent No.2 and was called inside after about five minutes, when respondent No.2 told the petitioner as under : -