TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the prestige of a party interested in such investigation and only if find such a direction necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case/situation. - Courts would be justified in issuing such a direction only if were to find prima facie an offence to have been committed and the Investigating Agency, for whatsoever reason, unwilling to act lest investigate or if find the investigation though undertaken, to be not a fair one or when find the gravity of the offence prima facie found by the Court to be such which requires investigation by a specialized agency, to restore public faith in the process of law. Either of the said requirements to have been met. Not only has the State/State Agency not refused investigation or a willingnes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest Litigation (PIL), seeks a mandamus to the respondent No.1 Union of India (UOI) (Ministry of Home Affairs) to register a criminal case against the respondents No.2 to 5 viz. Sh. Shanti Bhushan, Sh. Prashant Bhushan, Sh. Arvind Kejriwal and Sh. Manish Sisodia under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) and to conduct day-to-day trial proceedings within supervision of this Court. Ancillary reliefs of seizure of accounts and funds secured by the respondents No.2 to 5 in the name of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and other societies / entities is also claimed. 2. It is inter alia the case in the petition that though the petitioner had made a complaint dated 20th August, 2011 in this regard to the respondent No.1 UOI and upon UOI no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that certain queries had been made from the respondents pertaining to allegations in the petition and response whereto was awaited and the verification would be completed thereafter. 6. Vide order dated 5th February, 2014, on oral application of the petitioner, AAP was impleaded as respondent No.7 and a response called therefrom. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the said respondent No.7 AAP responding to the allegations made in the petition and to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. 7. By order dated 12th March, 2014 respondent No.1 UOI was directed to file its counter affidavit and has filed an affidavit dated 6th May, 2014 inter alia stating i) that it had filed a status report with respect to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent no.7 AAP is being targeted for such investigation and when it is the case of the respondent no.7 AAP that all other major political parties should be investigated on the same lines and that the respondent no.7 AAP has nothing to hide and functions in a transparent manner. It was also contended that the respondent no.7 AAP has in fact approached to the Supreme Court for investigation into funding of all political parties. The petitioner, in addition contended that the investigation also has to be regarding the violations of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 and Foreign Exchange Management Act and that the Central Investigation Agency (CIA) of the United States of America also has to be involved owing to the involvement of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stigating Agency, for whatsoever reason, unwilling to act lest investigate or if find the investigation though undertaken, to be not a fair one or when find the gravity of the offence prima facie found by the Court to be such which requires investigation by a specialized agency, to restore public faith in the process of law. 14. In the facts of the present case we do not find either of the said requirements to have been met. Not only has the State/State Agency not refused investigation or a willingness to look into the allegations made in the petition against the respondents but from a perusal of the records produced before us we find the State to have, in the context of each and every averment made in the present case, launched an inqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of ifs and buts , the said direction was set aside. 16. As far back as in S.N. Sharma Vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari (1970) 1 SCC 653, while dealing with powers of Magistrate under Code of Criminal Procedure, it was held that unless an extraordinary case of gross abuse of power is made out by those in charge of investigation, the Court should be quite loathe to interfere with the investigation, a field of activity reserved for the Police and the executive. 17. Thus, only if a case of mala fide exercise of power by a police officer is made out, would the Court interfere. 18. Supreme Court again in Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 reiterated that only in exceptional circumstances and in order to prevent miscarriage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
