Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-16
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Cr. Revision 45/2023
CNR No. DLCT 11-000709-2023
In the matter of :
RC-DST/S/001/2009
CBI Vs Unknown/Closure report.
Vishwanath Chaturvedi
s/o M.P Chaturvedi
r/o L-1/110, Sector-G,
Lucknow Department Authority Colony,
Kanpur Road, Lucknow,
UP. (permanent address) –-------- Petitioner
also at:
No. 335, Second Floor,
Double storey, New Rajinder Nagar
New Delhi. ( Present address)
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation ------------Respondent
Date of Institution : 23.09.2023
Date of Arguments : 11.12.2023
Date of Judgment : 12.12.2023
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 1 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 1 of 15 --
JUDGMENT
1. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order
dated 26.07.2023, passed by the court of Ld. ACMM-2
cum-ACJ, Rouse Avenue District Court, vide which the
application of the present petitioner namely Vishwanath
Chaturvedi, came to be dismissed/disposed off,
petitioner has filed the present revision.
2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the
present petition, are that petitioner filed a Writ Petition
(C) 633/2005, before Hon’ble Supreme Court, with a
prayer to investigate disproportionate assets of
Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family; in that case,
Supreme Court directed the CBI to conduct preliminary
inquiry; on 26.10.2007, CBI informed the Hon’ble
Supreme Court about the conclusion of the inquiry and
their willingness to place the status report before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. It is averred that in the meantime, times of
India published a news that DIG Internal note says
“agency has not verified allegations Mr. Mulayam
Singh Yadav and his family”. The aforesaid note was
aired by the Electronic Media; the forged documents
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 2 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 2 of 15 --
were filed by the Respondent/CBI before the Supreme
Court; the present petitioner informed the Supreme
Court by moving an application about the forged and
fabricated documents filed by the respondent/CBI; in
order to substantiate the aforesaid news, an FIR was
registered by the CBI against unknown persons vide
FIR No. 99/2010 (RC/DST/S/0001/2009).
4. In the said case, it appears that CBI filed the
Closure Report allegedly on the ground that
investigation could not proceed as neither the News
Channel nor the Reporters cooperated with the
Investigating officers.
5. It also appears that when the matter was
pending before the Ld. Trial Court for consideration of
the said Closure report, petitioner Vishwanath
Chaturvedi filed a protest petition with a request to take
cognizance on the Closure Report filed by the CBI.
6. Vide order dated 17.01.2023, the Ld. Trial
Court dismissed the protest petition filed by the
petitioner observing that the petitioner is indeed a rank
outsider and has no locus to file the protest petition and
directed the CBI to carryout further investigation.
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 3 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 3 of 15 --
7. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to have
moved an application dated 3.07.2023, with number of
prayers which came to be dismissed/disposed off vide
impugned order dated 26.07.2023.
8. The petitioner has assailed the Impugned order
dated 26.07.2023 on the following grounds:
(a) Ld. Trial Court failed to follow the procedure
established by Law and has passed the
impugned order without giving the hearing to
the petitioner or his counsel.
(b) Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that
the impugned order will effect and cause great
hardship and prejudice to the public at large.
(c) Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that
the petitioner is a whistle blower who is
acquainted with each and every facts of the case
and is an assets to the CBI in investigating the
matter.
(d) Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that
the petitioner is helping and aiding CBI and is
providing them the evidence for which CBI did
not object.
9. Respondent/CBI has filed a reply to the
present revision petition. By referring to the factual
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 4 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 4 of 15 --
proceedings as recorded by the Ld. Trial Court, it is
stated that averments made in the present revision
petition are misleading, baseless; the impugned order
dated 26.07.2023 is a reasoned order and has not
violated any principle of the natural justice; CBI has
conducted a thorough and proper investigation and filed
the final reports which is under consideration; the
petitioner has no locus standi in the present matter; the
impugned order did not in any manner cause hardship
and prejudice to the public at large. It is therefore,
prayed that the present revision petition may kindly be
dismissed.
10. Petitioner has filed the rejoinder to the
aforesaid reply and has denied the stand as taken by the
CBI.
11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued
more or less on the grounds and averments as
mentioned in the revision petition, which have already
been noted herein above, therefore, for the sake of
brevity the same are not being reproduced herein again.
12. Ld. PP for the CBI submitted that the
present petitioner has no locus standi to file the present
petition and solely on this ground itself alone, the
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 5 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 5 of 15 --
present petition is liable to be dismissed. He further
submitted that the impugned order being interlocutory
in nature cannot be assailed by way of a revision
petition in terms of the prohibition as contained in
section 397 CrPC. Ld. PP has relied upon two
authorities titled as Thakur Ram and others vs State
of Bihar, 1966 AIR (SC) 911 and PV Narsimha Rao
Vs State, 1997 CrLJ 3117.
13. I have perused the record and heard the Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner and the Ld. PP for the CBI.
14. At the very outset the maintainability of the
present revision was challenged on the ground that no
revision is maintainable against the interlocutory order.
According to the CBI impugned order being
interlocutory in nature, therefore, the same can not be
allowed to be challenged by way of present
proceedings. On the contrary Ld Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the valuable right of the
petitioner has been affected due to the impugned order,
therefore the present petition is very much
maintainable. According to the petitioner all his rights
have been closed by the impugned order of the trial
court, therefore the same has been assailed before this
court by way of revision.
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 6 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 6 of 15 --
15. To appreciate the submissions made, it is
necessary to go through the Section 397 CrPC which
reads as under:-
“397. Calling for records to exercise of powers
of revision.—
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may
call for and examine the record of any
proceeding before any inferior criminal court
situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the
purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to
the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior
court, and may, when calling for such record,
direct that the execution of any sentence or order
be suspended, and if the accused is in
confinement, that he be released on bail or on his
own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.—All Magistrates, whether
executive or judicial, and whether exercising
original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be
deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for
the purposes of this sub-section and of Section
398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-
section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to
any interlocutory order passed in any appeal,
inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been
made by any person either to the High Court or
to the Sessions Judge, no further application by
the same person shall be entertained by the other
of them.”
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 7 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 7 of 15 --
16. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397
CrPC can be exercised where the interest of public
justice requires interference for correction of manifest
illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of
justice. A court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction
against a final order of acquittal or conviction, or an
intermediate order not being interlocutory in nature. In
the case of Amar Nath v. State of Haryana,(1977) 4 SCC 137
Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the meaning of the
term “interlocutory order” in Section 397(2) CrPC. The
Apex Court held that the expression “interlocutory
order” denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary
nature which do not decide or touch upon the important
rights or liabilities of parties. Hence, any order which
substantially affects the right of the parties cannot be
said to be an “interlocutory order”.
17. In the case of Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017)
14 SCC 809 , it was held by the Honble Supreme Court,
that:-
15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397
CrPC appears to confer very wide powers on the
court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this
power is equally severely curtailed by sub-section
(2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition on a
court exercising its revision jurisdiction in respect
of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the
nature of orders in respect of which a court can
exercise its revision jurisdiction?
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 8 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 8 of 15 --
16. There are three categories of orders that a court
can pass—final, intermediate and interlocutory.
There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a
court can exercise its revision jurisdiction—that is
in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction.
There is equally no doubt that in respect of an
interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its
revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate
order is concerned, the court can exercise its
revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory
order.
18. Having pen down the proposition of law
touching the present controversy, this Court has no
difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that the impugned
order dated 26.07.2023, being purely interim and
temporary, is an interlocutory order and therefore, same
cannot be assailed by way of revision petition under
section 397 CrPC.
19. In the case in hand, the present petitioner is
neither the victim nor the complainant. Even if, the
petitioner had moved to Hon’ble Supreme Court with a
prayer for initiating action against one person or his
family, that had not created any right in his favour qua
the present proceedings. It has not been clarified as to
how the rights of the petitioner have been affected
drastically and the proceedings have come to an end
qua him. Thus, the present petition, being hit by the
provision of section 397 (2) CrPC, is not maintainable.
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 9 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 9 of 15 --
20. Nevertheless, even if for the sake of argument
it is presumed that petition is maintainable and not hit
by the aforesaid provision of law, on merits also the
present petition fails.
21. The impugned order has been put to challenge
by the petitioner basically on two grounds i.e Firstly,
said order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court without
hearing the petitioner, Secondly, the order is against
public policy and would cause great hardship and
prejudice to the public at large.
22. The record would indicate that the said
impugned order came to be passed by the Ld. Trial
Court on an application moved by the present petitioner
wherein the following prayers were made:-
(i) Call for the status report from CBI about the steps taken
in the light of the additional evidence produced on record,
and
(ii) Direct the CBI to take into custody Mr. Pradeep Rai to
stop him from manipulating the evidence and witnesses
by threat or coercion. Or
(iii) Place Mr. Pradeep Rai into judicial custody till charge
sheet is filed by the CBI.
(iv) Call upon the Senior Superintendent of Police (CBI) to
personally appear before the court to explain the progress
and actions taken against the accused persons.
(v) Ensure that my statements and the statement of the
concerned persons are promptly recorded by CBI.
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 10 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 10 of 15 --
23. The undisputed facts of the present case are
that pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble Supreme
Court, a Preliminary Enquiry was registered by the
CBI. CBI is said to have informed the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that CBI has concluded its enquiry and is willing
to place its status report. In the meanwhile, a news that
agency has not verified allegations against Mr.
Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family, was published in
the newspaper, which was aired by various electronic
media channels. The petitioner is said to have informed
the Hon’ble Supreme Court about the forged and
fabricated documents allegedly filed by the CBI. In
order to investigate the aforesaid news, an FIR was
registered by the CBI against unknown persons.
24. Further admitted facts are that, at the
conclusion of the investigation of the said case, CBI
filed the untrace report/closure report. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner filed a protest petition against
the said untraced report/closure report. Vide order dated
17.01.2023, Ld. Trial Court after hearing the
submissions on the protest petition as well as untraced
report/closure report, came to the conclusion that the
protest petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable and accordingly, it was dismissed.
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 11 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 11 of 15 --
However, the Ld. Trial Court rejected the untraced
report/closure report filed by the CBI and directed the
CBI to carry out the further investigation in the case. At
this stage, the application moved on behalf of the
petitioner came to be dismissed/disposed off vide
impugned order.
25. From the impugned order it is evident that on
26.07.2023, Sh. Prashant Chaturvedi, Ld Proxy Counsel
for the petitioner was present before the Ld. Trial
Court. For the sake of convenience, the relevant
observations made by the Ld. Trial Court in the
impugned order is being reproduced as under:-
“ … on the LDOH, an application seeking
immediate action against the accused was
filed on behalf of purported
petitioner/complainant with the contention
that accused is harassing, blackmailing and
intimidating him.
Pertinently, in view of the order
dated 17.01.2023, passed by Ld. CMM,
RADC, New Delhi, there is no complainant
in the present case/FIR. Furthermore, this is
a closure report and further investigation
has been directed by the Ld. CMM, RADC,
New Delhi, so as of now, there is no accused
in the present case.
In view of the same, the
application as mentioned above, stands
disposed off....”
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 12 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 12 of 15 --
26. Even if the impugned order is silent on
specific narration in the order that parties have been
heard, it cannot be presumed that no hearing was given
to the present petitioner. At times, if it appears to the
Court of law that the prayer made before it is either
frivolous or would amount to abuse of process of law,
such a prayer may be rejected depending upon the
circumstances, even without giving notice to the
opposite party. In the present case, no proceedings, as
such, were pending before the Ld. Trial Court at the
time when the aforesaid application was moved by the
petitioner which came to be disposed off vide
impugned order. The matter had already been sent
back to the CBI for further investigation after the
dismissal of the protest petition.
27. Moreover, the present petitioner has no locus
standi in the proceedings arising out of a case registered
by CBI bearing no. RC-DST/S0001/2009, as the same
is separate and distinct from the writ petition (C)
No.633/2005 filed by him before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Further, it has not been explained by the
petitioner, as to how the impugned order is against
public policy and has caused great hardship and
prejudice to the public at large. Thus, I do not find any
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 13 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 13 of 15 --
infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
28. The object of the revisional jurisdiction u/s
397 CrPC is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well founded error
and it would not be appropriate for the appellate Court
to scrutinize the impugned order which upon the face of
it bears a token of careful consideration of material
facts and appear to be in accordance with law.
Revisional jurisdiction can be evoked where the
decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there
is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding
recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is
ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
perversely.
29. Applying the aforesaid principles to the
impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that
there is no defect or an error in the impugned order
passed by the Ld. Trial Court and does not require any
interference by this Court. Rather, this Court is of the
opinion that unnecessary the precious time of the Court
has been wasted by filing the baseless application.
30. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the
petitioner stands dismissed with the cost of Rs 5000/-
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 14 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 14 of 15 --
to be deposited by the petitioner to the Central District
Legal Services Authority, RADC.
31. Copy of this order alongwith TRC be sent to
the Ld. Trial Court immediately.
(Rajesh Kumar Goel)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-16
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi/12.12.2023
Announced in the open court
today i.e 12.12.2023
Cr. Revision 45/2023 Page no. 15 of 15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi vs CBI Date of decision 12.12.2023
-- 15 of 15 --