2019 (12) TMI 1472 - HC - Indian Laws

Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties - Section 17-A of the amended provision of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - HELD THAT - It is made clear that the investigation with regard to any other Government Officer or police officials shall not be effected by this order. It is needless to say that the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation as has already been mentioned passed by this Court at Allahabad.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to impugned orders dated 12.04.2018, 22.02.2019, and 04.04.2019.
2. Quashing of FIR registered by CBI on 25.04.2019.
3. Application of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Petitioners' status as private individuals and not government servants.
5. Extending protection against investigation to petitioners only.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners sought writs to quash the impugned orders dated 12.04.2018, 22.02.2019, and 04.04.2019. The argument was made against the order dated 4.4.2019 being passed under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners contended that as private individuals, permission under Section 17-A could not have been granted against them. The court noted that the petitioners are not government servants, and the order dated 4.4.2019 was argued to be general in nature to facilitate the investigation against all involved in corruption. The court observed that the application of the said order could not be extended against the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners limited the prayer for protection only against the petitioners, not the police officials or other government officers.

2. The petitioners also sought the quashing of the FIR registered by the CBI on 25.04.2019 under various sections of the IPC and the Companies Act, 1956. The court considered the argument that the petitioners, being private individuals, should not have been subjected to investigation under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court noted that the petitioners were not government servants and that the order dated 4.4.2019 was general in nature. The court opined that the application of the said order could not be extended to the petitioners, indicating a favorable stance towards the petitioners' argument.

3. The application of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was a crucial aspect of the case. The petitioners vehemently argued that being private individuals, they should not have been subjected to investigation under Section 17-A. The court acknowledged this argument and noted that the petitioners were not government servants. The court's prima facie view was that the order dated 4.4.2019, which was argued to be under Section 17-A, could not be extended against the petitioners.

4. The status of the petitioners as private individuals and not government servants was a significant point of contention. The petitioners emphasized that as private individuals, they should not have been subject to investigation under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court accepted this argument and recognized that the petitioners were not government servants, thereby indicating a favorable stance towards the petitioners' position.

5. The court considered extending protection against investigation to the petitioners only, excluding police officials and other government officers. The counsel for the petitioners limited the prayer for protection solely to the petitioners. The court opined that the application of the order dated 4.4.2019 should not be extended against the petitioners, indicating a specific intent to safeguard the petitioners from the investigation.