K.L.Suri vs Union of India and ors.

Ujagar Singh, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR case No. RC12/86 C/U(E) CBI/SPE/New Delhi, dated 26th December, 1986, under Section 120/B, Indian Penal Code, read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 of the Export and Import Act, 1947 and Sections 420, 466, 471 and 380, Indian Penal Code, registered with Central Investigation Unit (E), I Branch, having the jurisdiction throughout the country, Central Bureau of Investigation, Lodhi Complex, Dalhousi Road, New Delhi. The counsel for the respondents challenge the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and quash the said case.

The allegation in the petition is that one Messrs. Intercontinental Marketing Consultants, new Delhi, obtained a specific Import Licence for the import of polyester filament yarn from the office of Joint Chief Controller, Import and Export (Central Licencing Area) New Delhi. Information received from the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bulsar, addressed to the Joint Chief Controller, Import and Export (Central Licencing Area) New Delhi, was that polyester filament yarn imported by the said firm against the said licences had been sold in the open market. The Joint Chief Controller, Import and Export (Central Licencing Area), New Delhi, wanted to take legal action for the forfeiture of the bank guarantees submitted by the firm in his office. Thereafter the concerned file containing the bank guarantees were found missing and were traced subsequently under mysterious circumstances in depleted condition and without bank guarantees. The original bank guarantees stolen from the said office were latter on presented in the Bank of Rajasthan Limited, Greater Kailash Branch, New Delhi, but the bank refused to make payment when on verification it came to their notice that the bank guarantee was stolen from the said office and the letter for the release of bank guarantee was not issued by the said office. There is further allegation that payment was secured against the said bank guarantee stolen from the office of Joint Chief Controller Import and Export (Central Licencing Area), New Delhi, by submitting the original bank guarantee as the forged letter purported to have been issued by the said office. The said firm is a sole proprietary firm and one Shri Yashendra Tandon son of Shri Yash Pal Tandon is the sole proprietor of the firm. The petitioner had nothing to do with the firm nor he ever was employed by the said firm in any capacity nor the petitioner is a partner of the said firm.

There are other allegations also mentioned in the petition but the same are not so relevant for the purposes of disposal of this petition.

The argument of the counsel for the respondents is that the submission of guarantees to the bank, missing of the file containing the bank guarantee and then the guarantees were discovered subsequently under the mysterious circumstances in depleted condition and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the said case.

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner urges that this Court has jurisdiction because the petitioner is a resident of Chandigarh and seeks this relief by quashing of the case. I have considred the argument and do not find from the material disclosed in this file that this Court can exercise this power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure simply because the petitioner happens to be a resident of Chandigarh, which fact is vehemently denied by the counsel for the respondent. This Court does not have jurisdiction but the maximum this Court could do was to grant anticipatory bail for a limited period only to enable the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court for grant of anticipatory bail but this petition is for quashing the case which, I am afraid, this Court has no jurisdiction.

At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner admits that this Court has no jurisdiction to quash the case.

In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may move appropriate Court for seeking relief if he is so advised within a period of 15 days. During the pendency of the petition the arrest of the petitioner was stayed. That part of the order will continue for the said period of 15 days.