Accused Need Not Be Heard Before Directing CBI Investigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Observing that "the accused need not be heard" before passing an order for CBI investigation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the central agency to probe a multi-crore fraud case in Punjab.
Justice Jasjit Bedi perusing a conspectus of precedents observed, "...this Court can order an investigation by the CBI even after a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted and the accused need not be heard before such an order is passed."
"All that the Court is required to examine before issuing such directions is that the accused persons were powerful and well-connected and that the investigation had been conducted in a biased manner so as to either weaken the prosecution case or to demolish it. Such directions could also be issued in cases where there are interstate ramifications. Further, ordering of such an investigation by the CBI would not amount to monitoring of the same as the CBI is free to conduct such an investigation in accordance with law," the judge added.
These observations were made while hearing the plea seeking independent probe into multi-crore fraud case, where accused persons allegedly forged an affidavit to receive crores of compensation on land acquired by NHAI for Delhi-Katra expressway.
It was submitted that the complainant and accused persons were party to the land dispute, however a forged affidavit was submitted to SDM for compensation when the land was acquired that, there was "no litigation on the land."
As a result the authorities released over Rs.28 Crores in favour of accused persons in compensation. It was contended by the petitioner that Punjab Police did not investigate in the fair manner, hence an independent probe should be conducted.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the accused persons namely, Sanjeet Kaur and Geetinder Kaur were exonerated on "farcical grounds."
"They were aware that the civil proceedings were pending. They received crores of rupees in their bank accounts as compensation for the acquired land. Stamp papers had been purchased by them. Merely because they had given powers of attorney to their mother cannot absolve them of their apparent culpability...", the Court observed.
The role of advocate who appeared for accused persons in the civil case has also not been investigated despite he having signed the false affidavit submitted by Amarjeet Kaur to the effect that there was no litigation on the land, noted the Court.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the SDM, Ludhiana through whom the money was released into the accounts of the accused neither filed a complaint against the accused under Section 195 Cr.P.C. for filing of false affidavits nor was he made a prosecution witness.
"This apparently shows that the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was designed in a manner so as to weaken the prosecution case," it remarked.
Justice Bedi highlighted that the Investigating Officer had rather strangely allowed Amarjeet Kaur to join investigation and then released her in a non-bailable offence without her being granted the concession of bail by any Court of Law. "It also appears that no notice was served upon her to join investigation."
In the light of the above, the Court opined that "it is thus apparent from the record that the investigation has not proceeded in a fair and unbiased manner. In fact, it has been conducted with a view to weaken the case of the petitioner/complainant."
Thus to ensure a fair and unbiased investigation, the CBI was directed to conduct the investigation, preferably within 6 months.
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate with Mr. Jaiveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Jindal, Asstt. A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate with Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.5.
SUNEET KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 237