No Compelling Reason: Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Trial Against RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav In Land For Job Scam Case

The Delhi High Court has refused to stay trial against RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in FIR registered by CBI in land for job scam case.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by Lalu seeking quashing of FIR, charge sheets, cognizance orders along with consequential orders passed by Special Judge (PC Act).

The Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, "The present matter is stated to be listed before the learned Special Judge for arguments on charge. Notwithstanding, the pendency of the present petition, petitioner would be at liberty to urge all his contentions before the learned trial court at the stage of consideration of charge. This would be rather an added opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his point and get the same adjudicated. Thus, I find no compelling reasons to stay the proceedings of the trial court."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate D.P. Singh.

Facts of the Case

Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the CBI has failed to obtain mandatory sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the Petitioner. It was also submitted that the alleged offences were committed during the period 2004-2009 and the present FIR was lodged in the year 2022, almost after a delay of 14 years, whereas, CBI has already conducted the investigation from 2009 to 2014 for the same offences by registering PE & RC during this period. It was argued that without mandatory approval under Section 17-A of the PC Act, the initiation of the enquiries and investigation are nonest.

The Counsel further submitted that no police officer can conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into the offence committed by a public servant where the offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his public functions without approval of the competent authority. Without such approval, any enquiry/inquiry/investigation undertaken would be void ab initio. He stated that the initiation of investigation without such approval vitiates the entire proceedings since inception and the same is a jurisdictional error.

It was argued that Section 17-A of the PC Act came into force in 2018, the enquiry was initiated in the year 2021 and the FIR was registered in 2022 and would therefore clearly attract the provision with the period of alleged offence being immaterial. On the other hand, the Senior Public Prosecutor while opposing the Petition submitted that the question of applicability of Section 17-A to the offences under the PC Act existing prior to its amendment is pending consideration before the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court and moreover the submissions made can be considered at the stage of framing of charge.

Reasoning By Court

The Court observed that in the case of Nara Chandrababu Naidu Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., the Supreme Court had expressed divergent views on the interpretation of Section 17-A of the PC Act, 1988, as also its applicability.

"In view of the same, the matter has been referred for the constitution of a Larger Bench for adjudication on the point on which contrary opinions have been expressed," the Court noted.

The Application was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Lalu Prasad Yadav vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, Advocate Varun Jain, Advocate Aparjita Jamwal, Advocate Naveen Kumar, Advocate Akhilesh Singh, Advocate Sumit Singh, Advocate Deepak, Advocate Digvijay Singh Rawat, Advocate Vamika Gupta

Respondent- Senior Advocate D.P. Singh, Advocate Manu Mishra, Advocate Garima Saxena, Advocate Roshini W Anand, Advocate Imaan Khera

Click here to read/ download Order