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 & 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.
Judgment reviewed by – Amit Singh