CBI investigation should be ordered in the rarest of rare cases otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases : High Court of Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 444 2022 & C.M.Nos.3850 3851 2022 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE Petitioner in person with Ms.Suman UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: Mr.Ajay Digpaul CGSC with Mr.Kamal R.Digpaul and Ms.Pinky Yadav Advocates for UOI Mr.Rahul Mehra Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Law standing counsel for Mr.Anupam S.Sharma SPP CBI with Mr.Prakash Airan and Mr.Harpreet Kalsi Advocates HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN Date of Decision: 03rd March 2022 JUDGMENT MANMOHAN J145 2021 EX.APPL.(OS) 1008 2021 1282 2021 and 38 2022 Petitioner who appears in person states that Clause 151 of Article of Association of the DMRC stipulates that an agreement should be signed by two Directors or by one Director and Secretary of DMRC. He states that in the present case the impugned agreement was signed by a Director3 SCC 571 has held as under: “Before parting with the case we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution while passing any order the Courts must bear in mind certain self imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with Keeping in view the fact that an arbitral award arising in pursuance to the contract in question has been scrutinised by a learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court this Court is of the opinion that the present matter does not call for any direction in the writ jurisdiction by this Court to direct the CBI investigation This Court is further of the view that the prayer for quashing of the execution proceeding is contrary to law and completely untenable A perusal of the paperbook also reveals that the petitioner had filed its complaint dated 18th February 2022 with the CBI on 19th February 2022 only. Within two days of filing of complaint with CBI the present writ petition has been filed In the opinion of this Court examination of the present complaint by the CBI cannot be expected to be completed in two days. Consequently this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is premature as CBI has not had reasonable time to examine the complaint. This Court is confident that CBI shall examine the complaint filed by the petitioner in accordance It is however made clear that it is open for the CBI to take a decision which it deems fit and appropriate in the present case. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition along with pending applications stands dismissed MANMOHAN J SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN J MARCH 03 2022 Page 

Summary: CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases if it starts investigating every cases and with limited resources may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations and same was upheld by High Court of Delhi in the case of MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE vs. UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS (W.P.(CRL) 444/2022) on 03rd March, 2022. Facts of the case are as Petitioner states clause 151 of Article of Association of the DMRC stipulates that an agreement should be signed by two Directors or by one Director and Secretary of DMRC. He states that in the present case, the impugned agreement was signed by a Director (Works) alone, which is contrary to Clause 151 of the Article of Association of DMRC and the impugned agreement is contrary to public policy and Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act and is an outcome of fraud. Petitioner appearing in person states that the validity of the impugned agreement has not been challenged by DMRC which reflects that a fraud is being played upon the State and is an indication of the corruption prevalent in all the transactions relating to the impugned agreement. Petitioner seeks registration of an FIR and investigation by the CBI under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC read with Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court is of the opinion that even if the argument that the impugned agreement is not signed by the competent authority is accepted, then also it would not constitute an offence to be investigated by the CBI. Court is further of the opinion that a CBI investigation should be ordered in the rarest of rare cases and the present writ petition is premature, as CBI has not had reasonable time to examine the complaint. It is, however, made clear that it is open for the CBI to take a decision which it deems fit and appropriate in the present case.