RAJIV KUMAR ARORA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE scope of this petition lies in narrow compass. Mr. Mathur who appears for the complainant states that his client had filed an FIR bearing No. RC-DAI-2007-A-0009, dated 6.2.2007 before CBI whereby he had sought to lay certain information against two individuals namely, Mr. Mishri Lal and Dr. Vikas Rampal. Consequent upon the investigation carried out by CBI, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed by the CBI before the Special Judge, CBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. As per this report, the CBI had decided to charge sheet only one of the two individuals against whom the report had been lodged, namely, Mr. Mishri Lal. As regards Dr. Vikas Rampal, who was the other person named by the complainant in the FIR; the CBI had decided not to charge sheet him. On the basis of this Final Report, the learned Special Judge, Delhi, passed an order on 2.01.2008 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and directed summons to be issued for the appearance of Mishri Lal on 22.01.2008.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner, who happens to be the complainant, is that in passing the impugned order dated 2nd January, 2008, the aforesaid final report of the CBI under Section 173 Cr.PC, wherein one of the persons named by the petitioner in the FIR was not chargesheeted by the CBI, was in effect accepted by the Special Judge, CBI. He states that since the effect of that order was that proceedings against Dr. Vikas Rampal were dropped, the Special Judge ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner/complainant to be heard before passing the said order. For this proposition, learned counsel for the petitioner relies squarely on the decision of Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr., 1985(2) RCR(Crl.) 259 : 1985 SCC (Crl.) 267 where in paragraph 4, it is stated, inter alia, as follows :

(3.) IN that view of the matter, and without going into any other aspect, the impugned order dated 2.01.2008 is set aside on the sole ground that since the trial court has decided not to proceed against one of the two persons named in the FIR, albiet on the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C filed by the CBI before it; the court ought to have given notice to the informant and provided him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the said report. Needless to say, once the requisite opportunity has been granted, and after hearing the informant, it would be open to the Special Judge to take a decision in the matter on its own merits.