In a recent legal development, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) successfully filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to challenge specific remarks made by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) at the Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi. The ED sought the expungement of these remarks, which were deemed to have cast aspersions on the competence and integrity of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in a high-profile case involving absconding accused Karan Chugh.
Background of the Case:
The matter concerns a prosecution complaint filed by the ED on September 20, 2024, in Case No. 25/2024, involving Lakshay Vij and others. The case was listed before the learned Special Judge for consideration on October 5, 2024, and the ED’s petition primarily focused on certain remarks made by the judge regarding the conduct of the investigation. These remarks criticized the failure of the ED to take coercive action against Karan Chugh, a key accused in the case who was allegedly absconding.
In the order dated October 5, 2024, the judge raised concerns about the ED's delay in initiating steps to apprehend Chugh, despite the fact that his alleged role had been identified in the investigation months earlier. The judge's observations were seen as questioning the professionalism and intentions behind the ED’s actions, which led to the filing of the petition by the ED.
Key Allegations and Legal Arguments:
The ED’s special counsel, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, argued that the remarks made in the October 5, 2024, order were factually incorrect and misrepresented the actions taken by the I.O. in the case. According to the ED, the I.O. had taken all necessary steps to trace the absconding accused, including issuing multiple summons and coordinating with the Bureau of Immigration to open a Look-Out-Circular (LOC) against Chugh.
The petition highlighted that the remarks made by the Special Judge were not only incorrect but also damaging to the reputation of the I.O., an Assistant Director in the ED. In the petition, Mr. Hossain referenced several Supreme Court judgments, such as Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007) and Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), which affirm that it is not mandatory for an investigating agency to arrest or trace an accused before filing a prosecution complaint.
Furthermore, the ED argued that the investigation had been conducted under the supervision of senior officials, and there was no justification for summoning the Director of the ED, as suggested in the subsequent order dated October 19, 2024.
Court’s Decision:
After reviewing the facts, the court found merit in the ED's petition. It observed that, based on the legal principles established in Dinesh Dalmia and Tarsem Lal, the filing of a prosecution complaint does not necessarily imply neglect of investigation. The court also emphasized that coercive action, including arrest, could be pursued even after the filing of a charge sheet, if needed.
The court also acknowledged the serious impact of adverse remarks on the careers of government officials. It referenced Supreme Court rulings that caution against summoning officers unnecessarily and exerting undue pressure on them to align with the court’s whims.
As a result, the court decided to expunge the remarks made in the orders dated October 5 and October 19, 2024, while clarifying that the ongoing proceedings in the case, including the investigation, would continue as per the law. The court noted that the expungement did not reflect any comment on the Special Judge's overall handling of the case but solely addressed the unfounded remarks concerning the ED’s investigation.
Conclusion:
The court's decision to expunge the remarks is a significant victory for the ED, which had sought to protect the integrity of its investigation and the reputation of its officers. This ruling underscores the importance of fair and accurate judicial observations and the need for judicial restraint when assessing the actions of law enforcement agencies. While the case remains ongoing, the ED can proceed with its investigation and prosecution without the shadow of unjustified criticisms.
The case also highlights the delicate balance between judicial oversight and the autonomy of investigative agencies, and the critical role that courts play in ensuring that the actions of law enforcement are not unjustly hindered or misrepresented.
Section 528, BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA - 2023
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
