Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1753 (ALL)

Prithvi Raj Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-05-06

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.1.2016 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ghaziabad thereby rejecting the application dated 27.1.2015 under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that prosecution started without obtaining consent of the State of Uttar Pradesh under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 despite this fact that offences alleged against the applicant is said to has been committed at Meerut. Thus it was incumbent upon the C.B.I. to obtain consent of the State of U. P. before lodging of the F.I.R. and starting investigation in the matter. It was further argued that in absence of such consent entire proceedings of the criminal case is an abuse of process of law. It was next contended that application moved by the applicant was illegally rejected by the court concerned. 4. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ms. Mayawati Vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (7) SCR 33. 5. Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Advocate appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that in fact offenced for which F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant were committed by the applicant preparing the forged letter of the then Union Home Minister. A verification was also made by the Union Home Ministry and the letter was found forged. Thereafter Union Home Ministry directed for registration of the F.I.R. Thus the cause of action for F.I.R. arose at New Delhi. Looking to the direction of the Union Home Ministry there was no necessity to obtain consent of the State of U. P. as offence has been committed at both places. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the concerned Magistrate. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mayawati (Supra). 7. In the present matter as is evident from the record a forged letter was produced before the authority concerned situated at district Meerut regarding transfer of the applicant purported to have been issued by the then Union Home Minister. Mayawati (Supra). 7. In the present matter as is evident from the record a forged letter was produced before the authority concerned situated at district Meerut regarding transfer of the applicant purported to have been issued by the then Union Home Minister. On suspicion the same was got verified by the competent authority. One Dr. Mahesh Sharma, Private Secretary to Union Home Minister, Government of India on verification of the said letter wrote a letter to the Director, C.B.I. New Delhi on 18.9.2006 to lodge F.I.R. and investigate matter. It also appears that in pursuance of the letter of the Home Minister F.I.R. was lodged in the matter by the C.B.I. at New Delhi and investigation was carried out and thereafter charge sheet was submitted to the C.B.I. Court, Ghaziabad. Thus on the basis of above mentioned facts this Court is of the view that in the present matter it cannot be said that no cause of action arisen at New Delhi against the applicant. Since F.I.R. was lodged at New Delhi on the basis of letter issued by the Union Home Ministry, thus there was no occasion to obtain consent of the State of U. P. because the letter said to be issued by the Union Home Ministry. As far as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mayawati (Supra) is concerned Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically directed to lodge the F.I.R. and investigate the matter regarding Taj Corridor Scam. The C.B.I. not only lodged the F.I.R. in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court but also lodged separate F.I.R. to investigate the disproportionate assets of Ms. Mayawati, the then Chief Minister of the U. P. Hon'ble the Supreme Court quashed the subsequent F.I.R (second F.I.R.) on the basis that there was no order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to lodge that F.I.R. nor there was consent of the State of U. P. In the present matter the factual situation is entirely different. F.I.R. is lodged on the basis of letter addressed to the C.B.I. by the Union Home Ministry and forged letter for which present prosecution is started is purported to have been issued by the then Union Home Minister. 8. F.I.R. is lodged on the basis of letter addressed to the C.B.I. by the Union Home Ministry and forged letter for which present prosecution is started is purported to have been issued by the then Union Home Minister. 8. If the finding recorded by the trial court is taken into consideration in context with the above factual and legal situation no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned order. The application being devoid of merit is dismissed with the observation that trial shall go on and the trial court will not be influenced with any observation recorded herein above by this Court.