DAVID MARIO DENIS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is the complainant/informant of the First Information Report bearing No.0310 of 2022 lodged on 29/10/2022 at Police Station-Indira Nagar, District-Lucknow, under Sec. 342, 386, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and sec. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act (offences under Sec. 409, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. and Sec. 7A, 8 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act have been subsequently added during course of investigation), assails the validity of consent accorded by the State of Uttar Pradesh under sec. 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as 'DSPE Act') by means of an order dtd. 29/12/2022 for investigation of the said F.I.R. by Central Bureau of Investigation (herein after referred to as 'the CBI').

(2.) Before delving into the competing arguments made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties, it would be appropriate to note certain facts which have led to filing of the instant writ petition. On 29/10/2022 an F.I.R. bearing No.0310 of 2022 was lodged by the petitioner against two accused persons, (i) Vinay Pathak, the then Vice Chancellor, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'University') and (ii) Ajay Mishra, the Proprietor of a Company known as XLICT. The allegations in the First Information Report as can be gathered from a perusal of the same are that the petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s DIGITEXT Technologies India Private Ltd. and has been executing certain works related to pre and post examination conducted by the University since the year 2014-2015 and that certain bills of the petitioner were pending for the work said to have been executed by him for the academic years 2020-2021, 2021-2022. As per further recital made in the First Information Report, the petitioner made a request personally to the then Vice Chancellor of the University for clearing the pending bills on which the Vice Chancellor asked him to come to his residence at Kanpur University where he met the Vice Chancellor in the month of February, 2022 and was told that the Vice Chancellor gets 15% commission against the payment of bills and that he will pass the bills only once he is paid 15% amount as commission. The First Information Report further mentions that the petitioner was further told that if he did not make payment of the commission amount his company shall be removed from the works related to Agra University and other Universities as has been done in Kanpur University. The F.I.R. also states that the Vice Chancellor further told the petitioner that it is he who has been instrumental in appointment of the Vice Chancellors of eight Universities and that he had to pass on money to the top and that he threatened the petitioner on account of which he agreed to pay 15% bill amount as commission. In the F.I.R. it has further been recited that the Vice Chancellor thereafter gave him telephone number of the other accused person, Ajay Mishra and told him that after payment against the bills are made he should deliver the amount of commission to Ajay Mishra and it is only then that petitioner's company shall be engaged further. The petitioner in the F.I.R. further stated that the Vice Chancellor made the petitioner to speak to the other accused, Ajay Mishra through Apple Mobile and told him that the petitioner shall contact him and further that he must tell the petitioner as to how the amount of commission was to be paid.

(3.) Further allegation in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner thereafter contacted the co-accused-Ajay Mishra who told him that the bills have been cleared by the Vice Chancellor and the amount has also been credited in his account and that he must now pay the commission. Petitioner further stated in the F.I.R. that he paid some amount to the co-accused, however, in the month of April, 2022 the Vice Chancellor again told the petitioner that he should meet Ajay Mishra and deliver the amount of commission and thereafter on the asking of the co-accused Ajay Mishra the petitioner transferred three amounts of Rs.51,62,500.00,Rs.11,80,000.00 and Rs.10,98,875.00 through electronic mode in the bank account of another firm, namely, International Business Forms, Alwar, Rajsthan. The allegation in the F.I.R. further is that the petitioner paid the co-accused Ajay Mishra Rs.20.00 lakh and Rs.15,55,000.00 in cash. As per the F.I.R., on account of the fact that the petitioner failed to meet further demand of bribe, his company was disengaged and in place of his company the work was awarded to co-accused Ajay Mishra through UPDESCO.