UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SUNIL TRIPATHI ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 374 · Decided: 31-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
v.
SUNIL TRIPATHI ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5987-5989 of 2018)
JULY 31, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Investigation:
Preliminary enquiries conducted by CBI – Therein CBI reached
the conclusion that it was not a fit case for the CBI to take over the
investigation, and that investigation in the matters could be carried
out with the State Police – In Writ petitions, High Court directed
CBI to convert the preliminary enquiries into FIRs/RCs and to
ensure that investigation was expeditiously completed – CBI’s
appeal challenging the direction – Held: High Court did not
properly analyse the pleas of CBI as well as the pleas raised by the
respondents – Therefore, the case is remitted to High Court to
consider the contentious issues de novo – Appeals disposed of.
State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors.
(2010) 3 SCC 571 : [2010] 2 SCR 979 ; Manohar Lal
Sharma v. Principal Secretary and Ors. (2014) 2 SCC
532 ; Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau
of Investigation and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 682 : [2014] 6
SCR 873 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 2 SCR 979
   referred to
Para 3
(2014) 2 SCC 532
   referred to
Para 3
[2014] 6 SCR 873
   referred to
Para 3
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal Nos. 5987-
5989 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated  20.07.2017 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 12313 of 2015,
602 of 2017 and CM  No. 2775 of 2017.
  [2018] 9 S.C.R. 374
374
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
375
R. Balasubramanium, Mullapudi Rambabu, Akshay Amritanshu,
B. V. Balram Das, Ms. Aarti Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Abhimanue Shrestha, Adv. for the Respondent.
Caveator-in-person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. By the impugned judgment and
order dated 20th July, 2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.12313 of 2015, Writ Petition (Civil) No.602
of 2017 & C.M. No.2775 of 2017, the appellant No.2 Central Bureau of
Investigation (“CBI”) has been directed to take immediate steps to
convert preliminary enquiry (PE) No.2172014A0003 dated 7th May, 2014,
PE No.4(A) dated 8th May, 2014 and PE No. AC12014 A0006 dated
12th May, 2014 into FIRs/RCs and to ensure that investigation is
expeditiously completed and taken to its logical end in accordance with
law. In addition, consequential directions have been issued to the
appellant CBI.
2. The appellants have assailed the aforesaid decision on the ground
that such directions to the CBI are untenable in law and would require
the investigating agency to ignore its limits and functions and act beyond
the statutory dispensation.  According to the appellants, the effect of the
directions given by the High Court is to call upon the CBI to act in a
particular manner de hors the material facts and the conclusion
recorded in the enquiry report. The thrust of the contention urged by the
appellants is that since the CBI, after conducting preliminary enquiry,
was of the prima facie opinion that there was no involvement of any
public servant or any loss to the public funds, it was not a fit case for the
CBI to take over the investigation and that the investigation thereof can
be conveniently carried out by the State police. In this context, a note
was submitted by the CBI to the concerned department to proceed with
the matter in accordance with law. It is urged by the appellants that the
High Court misdirected itself in relying upon the allegations adverted to
in the PE registered by the CBI pursuant to the orders passed by the
High Court on 8th January, 2014 in Writ Petition No.5578/2013 and
mistook it as the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. If that
basis is discarded, then it would necessarily follow that the investigation
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. SUNIL TRIPATHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
of the alleged offence can be conveniently done by the State police as it
does not involve any instance of national or international ramifications
as well. In substance, it is urged by the appellants that it was not a fit
case for entrusting the investigation of the alleged crime to CBI and that
the High Court decision has failed to analyse all the relevant aspects
placed before it in that regard.
3. The respondents, on the other hand, would contend t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.