Pankaj Jain v. Central Bureau Of Investigation

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the CBI Sri. Amit Misra and perused the records.

2. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred on behalf of the applicant with prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings of Case No. 3 of 2017 (State v. Yadav Singh) initiated in pursuance of the charge-sheet bearing no. 6 of 2017 dated 31st May, 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 04(A) 2015.Central Bureau Investigation/STF/DLI, under section 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC read with section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, PS Central Bureau Investigation, New Delhi pending before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad. The second prayer is to issue direction for strict compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No. 12396 of 2014 (Dr. Nutan Thakur v. State of U.P), whereby CBI was directed to investigate into tenders/works released between 14th December, 2011 and 23rd December, 2011. Further prayer is to stay the further proceedings and any other relief be granted as this Court may deem ft and proper.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the tenders in pursuance of the work done by the applicant on the relevant date, the applicant was contractor. He further submitted that tenders for work was duly accepted and approved and when opinion was obtained from IIT Delhi, the same was approved. He further submitted that though no ofence has been committed by the applicant, however the charge-sheet dated 31 May, 2017 has been submitted by the CBI and without issuing any summon or bailable warrant to ensure presence of the applicant before the Special Judge, CBI directly non-bailable warrant has been issued within a week on 7 June, 2017 and as such, the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Mr. Amit Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of CBI submitted that during investigation it was found that the estimates prepared were found at exorbitant rates without calculating market sale rate, which caused loss to the exchequer and as such in view of the material collected during the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant. Since prima facie commission of ofence is disclosed, as such the applicant is not entitled for any relief. If there is any grievance, that may be raised before the court concerned.

5. As far as prayer regarding quashing of the proceedings in pursuance of the charge-sheet no. 6 of 2017 dated 31 May, 2017 is concerned, we feel that it is not a ft case for quashing of the proceedings at this initial stage. Since in view of the fact that investigation is conducted by the CBI, prima facie commission of ofence is disclosed. The defence version is expected to be considered by the court concerned at appropriate stage in accordance with law. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere at this initial stage in the proceedings pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad.

6. The main grievance of counsel for the applicant is that without issuing summon or any bailable warrant, directly within a week non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant, hence the same is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that the applicant undertakes to appear before the court concerned (Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad) within two weeks and in the meantime non-bailable warrant be stayed.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct that if applicant appears and surrenders before the Special Judge, CBI within two weeks and applies for bail, it is expected that the same will be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law considering the direction of this Court as well as Supreme Court. In the meantime for a period of 2 weeks, efect of non-bailable warrant shall be kept in abeyance.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the application is, accordingly, disposed of.