Special Court In Kerala Dismisses Complaint Filed Against CBI Officials Investigating ISRO Espionage Case

A Special CBI Court in Kerala presided by judge K. Sanil Kumar on Friday dismissed a private complaint seeking action against the CBI officials involved in the ISRO espionage case investigation. The complaint was filed alleging commission of offences under Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 

The complainant, S. Vijayan pressed for either forwarding the complaint u/s.156(3) CrPC or to order a preliminary enquiry against the accused. He relied on the Supreme Court decision of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P (AIR 2014 (SC) 187).

However, the Court noted that the aforementioned decision of the Apex Court particularly clarified that the scope of preliminary inquiry is only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence and not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received.

To unveil the legal quandary, the Bench analysed the complaint submitted. Upon such examination, the Court found that it suffered from non-­revelation of certain vital information. 

According to the Court, the complaint did not disclose when or where the public servants demanded illegal gratification as alleged. Similarly, it failed to reveal from whom such illegal gratification was received.

For the reason that such crucial information was not disclosed in the complaint, it was held that the complaint lacks the disclosure of a cognizable offence against the accused.

"The allegation in the complaint does not constitute an offence, and when considered along with the records produced by the complainant it fails to disclose any cognizable offence, and any offence at that," the Court said. 

It was also stated that there is a possibility that the complainant, who is a frustrated litigant and whose monumental efforts before the Supreme Court ended in fiasco, is initiating criminal proceedings just to harass his legal opponents with mala fide intention or with the ulterior motive of wrecking vengeance on his legal opponents.

Therefore, it was held that there was no ground for proceeding against the accused, either through a preliminary inquiry or u/s.156(3) CrPC, especially reckoning the long and unexplained delay in filing the complaint. 

Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed as follows:

"This private complaint u/s.190(1) Cr.P.C, is trammeled by the requirements of Sec. 2(d)of Cr.P.C. and hence this complaint warrants rejection at the threshold as it is baseless and frivolous. I effect the rejection."

Case Title: S. Vijayan v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.