2025 (10) TMI 547 - HC - Indian Laws

Quash petitions denied; prima facie evidence shows conspiracy, locker-record fraud and misrepresentation under Sections 120-B, 419, 466, 477-A IPC

Pawan Kumar Agrawal Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation Through - Superintendent Of Police CBI.

HC dismissed petitions seeking quash of the charge sheet and criminal proceedings, finding no extraordinary reasons to interfere with trial. The court ... Seeking to quash charge sheet filed by the respondents against the petitioner and the criminal proceedings initiated against him - seeking copies of certain documents which were allegedly seized by the respondent/CBI - HELD THAT:- The allegations against the petitioner are basically that he, in connivance with other accused persons including the Bank officials, got his name recorded against the owner of the locker in question which was owned by B.L. Agrawal, an IAS officer, posted in the State of Chhattisgarh. The detailed reply filed by the respondent/CBI speaks volumes. The documentary evidence as well as the statement of the bank officials makes it amply clear that firstly, the demise of the co-owner R.D. Goel was not informed by B.L. Agrawal to the Bank authorities and the name of the petitioner was got added in place of B.L. Agrawal antedating the applications in a fraudulent manner and further, the petitioner also could not establish that the cash of Rs. 15 Lakhs found in the locker in question belonged to Mamta Agrawal, though in the IT proceedings, she has been exonerated. As per the return filed by the CBI, it is amply clear that the said amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs for which B.L. Agrawal did not had any explanation, the entire conspiracy was hatched and the said amount was tried to be shown to be belonging to Mamta Agrawal, when in fact, the said amount prima facie belonged to B.L. Agrawal himself. The plea taken by the petitioner is not tenable and acceptable as the bundles of currency notes bear the slips of State Bank of India and Dena Bank instead of Union Bank of India as claimed by the petitioner. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that prima facie there is sufficient materials available on record to prosecute the petitioner as he connived with other accused persons and in order to provide a shield to his brother B.L. Agrawal, the petitioner has tried to show that the locker in question belonged to him and the money belonged to Mamta Agrawal, and his brother B.L. Agrawal, had nothing to do either with the locker or the cash found in the locker. The charge sheet has already been filed by the respondent/CBI before the learned Special Judge (CBI) and at this stage, there are no extraordinary reason so as to interfere with the trial proceedings. Prima facie, the conduct of the petitioner clearly falls under the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 466 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that the FIR was lodged against B.L. Agrawal, the petitioner and Antony Samy for the offences under Sections 120-B read with Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the charge-sheet filed by the CBI reveals that the petitioner alongwith two other co-accused i.e. B.L. Agrawal and Antony Samy, they are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 466 and 477-A of the IPC. There is prima facie ample evidence collected by the CBI that the B.L. Agrawal conspired with the petitioner and Antony Samy, the then incharge of Locker Department of the Bank as ante-dated application was prepared by the petitioner and B.L. Agrawal and was taken on record by Antony Samy - the offence of cheating by impersonation appears to be prima facie made out. The statement of co-accused Antony Samy clearly indicates that there has been manipulations in the Bank records to show that the petitioner is the renter of the locker in question and not B.L. Agrawal. Both these petitions viz. WPCr. No. 201/2017 as well as Cr.M.P. No. 587/2013, are dismissed being devoid of merit. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the investigating agency had jurisdiction under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) to investigate and file a charge-sheet in respect of the offences alleged. 2. Whether the High Court should quash the criminal proceedings/charge-sheet at the pre-trial stage where (a) forensic and income-tax proceedings allegedly exonerate the accused of tax-evasion and (b) accused contend that bank records were not forged and cash belonged to a third party. 3. Whether the trial court and revisional court erred in refusing to supply to the accused certain seized documents (complaint, preliminary investigation report, handwriting expert report) that were not made part of the charge-sheet and on which the prosecution did not intend to rely. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Jurisdiction of investigating agency under the DSPE Act Legal framework: Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act require (i) a Central Government notification specifying offences (s.3); (ii) an order by the Central Government extending the DSPE's powers and jurisdiction to a State (s.5); and (iii) consent of the State Government for exercise of powers in that State (s.6). Jurisdictional compliance is a precondition to valid investigation by the DSPE/CBI outside Union territories. Precedent treatment: The Court considered earlier decisions including a Division Bench ruling of this Court that evaluated the existence of State consent and held CBI jurisdiction to be valid in analogous circumstances. The judgment follows existing authority rejecting jurisdictional challenge where State consent could be shown or was not withdrawn. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined documentary material and prior judicial determinations and observed that the State had, by earlier correspondence/letters, given consent under s.6 and that post-registration clarificatory notifications did not amount to withdrawal of consent. The Court found the plea that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to be already examined and rejected in prior authoritative pronouncements and on the record before it. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where material demonstrates prior State consent under s.6 and no unequivocal withdrawal, CBI investigation cannot be vitiated for lack of jurisdiction. Obiter - Observations on administrative clarificatory notifications not amounting to withdrawal of all prior consents. Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge under the DSPE Act is rejected; prima facie the investigating agency had authority to investigate and file the charge-sheet. Issue 2 - Whether the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings should be quashed at pre-trial (given forensic/IT exoneration contentions) Legal framework: The Court applied established principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings - interference at pre-trial is exceptional and requires absence of any prima facie material to proceed; the Court weighed material in the charge-sheet and statements/evidence collected during investigation to determine whether a prima facie case exists to continue trial. Precedent treatment: The Court considered and relied upon multiple authorities (cited in the record) delineating the narrow scope for quashing when a prima facie case is made out on the materials; prior single-judge quashing order was found cryptic and set aside by the Supreme Court for reconsideration. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court undertook a fact-sensitive review of the charge-sheet and investigative material. It highlighted documentary evidence and multiple bank official statements suggesting ante-dating/alteration in bank records, confessions or admissions by a bank employee regarding placement of purportedly antedated documents, inconsistencies in currency bundle slips/dates vis-à-vis claimed origin of funds, absence of CCTV footage for relevant period, and recovery of locker key from the residence of an implicated person. Although the Income-Tax/Settlement findings had exonerated the taxpayer from tax liability and an FSL report had been obtained, the Court found that offences distinct from tax liability - criminal conspiracy, cheating by impersonation, forgery/falsification of bank records - were prima facie made out by the collected material and therefore the mere existence of IT settlement or forensic report did not eliminate the criminal allegations. The Court emphasized the distinction between income-tax outcomes and independent offences relating to falsification/fraud and noted that forensic findings and IT exoneration did not conclusively negate the culpable conduct alleged in the charge-sheet. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where the charge-sheet and supporting investigative material disclose prima facie evidence of offences distinct from tax liability (conspiracy, impersonation, forgery, falsification), the High Court should not quash proceedings at pre-trial merely because tax authorities reached a different conclusion or because some forensic material is available; the proper course is to let trial decide contested facts. Obiter - Observations on the significance of currency bundle slips and CCTV material as corroborative facts for the trial court to weigh. Conclusion: No extraordinary reason existed to quash the criminal proceedings; the Court declined to interfere with trial and held a prima facie case is made out for offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 466 and 477-A IPC (as charged). Issue 3 - Refusal to supply seized documents not part of charge-sheet Legal framework: Principles concerning disclosure require prosecution to supply documents it intends to rely upon and material that is part of the police report/charge-sheet; however, courts have held that not all seized material automatically becomes disclosable unless it is part of the case put forward or the accused demonstrates specific prejudice from non-supply. Precedent treatment: The Court reviewed decisions referred to by parties concerning disclosure obligations but placed emphasis on whether the prosecution had made the documents part of the charge-sheet or intended to rely on them at trial. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the prosecution's categorical stance that the disputed documents, although possibly seized, were not included in the charge-sheet and would not be relied upon. The petitioner failed to demonstrate how refusal to supply those particular documents would cause prejudice to his defence or impede legitimate exercise of rights. The trial court and revisional court had recorded reasons for refusal, and the High Court found no error warranting interference. The Court also noted that demands for such material, absent a showing of necessity or of being material to specific defence, cannot be used to delay or prolong trial. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where seized documents are not made part of the charge-sheet and the prosecution disclaims reliance on them, refusal to supply those documents to the accused does not ordinarily warrant interference unless the accused shows specific prejudice. Obiter - Observations on the need for expeditious trial and avoiding tactical delays through blanket disclosure demands. Conclusion: The orders of the trial and revisional courts denying supply of the requested documents are upheld; no interference is warranted in exercise of writ or inherent jurisdiction. Other consequential findings and directions Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted prior quashing by a Single Judge was set aside by the Supreme Court as cryptic and ordered reconsideration; on reconsideration, the Court found the earlier quashing unsupported by the record and therefore restored the charge-sheet and proceedings. The Court observed that although the matter had been pending long, the existence of delay did not, by itself, justify quashing where prima facie culpability remains. Conclusion: Both petitions (quash application and application for supply of certain seized documents) are dismissed as devoid of merit; the trial is to proceed and the trial court is urged to conclude the trial at the earliest given the long pendency.