MURARI LAL TAYAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Murari Lal Tayal has filed the present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here-in-after referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No. RCCHG-2015 A0019 dtd. 15/9/2015 under Sec. 120-B read with Ss. 420, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (here-in-after referred to as the 'IPC') and Sec. 13(1) (d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station CBI, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1), Final Report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2) and summoning order dtd. 16/3/2018, passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Haryana at Panchkula (Annexure P-3) and the consequential proceedings arisen therefrom.

(2.) As per arguments raised by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of summoning has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner being the Principal Secretary was to assist the then Chief Minister, Haryana in his official capacity and he had played his role in his official capacity as per the Rules of Business of the Government of Haryana, 1977 as amended upto 13/10/2006. Petitioner was not having any independent powers to exercise but he had only communicated the orders to the decision making authority as the power rests with him. Petitioner while holding additional charge of Chairman, HSIIDC was only an ex officio and no decision was taken by him during that period also. Nothing came during investigation as to whether there was any contravention of the procedure or the decision was taken by him independently. The petitioner did his best while assisting the then Chief Minister being within the Rules of Business and the established practice. He was not involved in any decision making process at any point of time. While working as Chairman of HSIIDC, being in his ex officio capacity his presence was only nominal. While convening the meeting of Board of Directors of HSIIDC held on 11/7/2007, only the decision taken by the then Chief Minister was conveyed as neither there was any agenda of deferment of the award nor any proposal was formulated on his behalf. No such decision for deferment or recommendation was taken in said meeting. It is only the functionaries of HSIIDC who took the decision for deferment of the award on 18/6/2007 and a letter dtd. 20/6/2007 was also issued to Land Acquisition Collector to defer the award.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are not based on any evidence or any specific act or conduct of the petitioner. There is no allegation of illegal gratification or wrongful gain against him. Even there was no material on record to show that the petitioner was beneficiary in any manner. Learned Senior counsel also submits that the impugned order of summoning has been passed mechanically without any application of mind. There is no legal evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged allegations. There is neither any direction nor circumstantial evidence to show the involvement of the petitioner in any conspiracy.