Ram Singh Kaswa and Others Vs CBI and Others

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J@mdashBy way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Special Judge (CBI Cases) No. 1, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 1/2013 whereby the learned Court below by dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioners refused to send the same under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR and investigation by CBI.

2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondents before the Court below with the averments that a land measuring 2222.2 sq. yards is situated at Plot No. 26, Panchsheel Marg, New Delhi and the same was leased out on behalf of the President of India on 17.02.1964 by way of a lease-deed to Maharani Manvendra Kaur, Rajmata, Dholpur as per terms and conditions incorporated in the lease-deed for her personal occupation and use and possession of the said land was handed over to her and as per terms and conditions of the lease-deed the land was to remain as a Government property. Subsequently, a letter dated 09.03.1974 came to be issued in favour of respondent-Shri Hemant Singh by Government of India and as per this letter the aforesaid land was transferred in his favour on the same terms and conditions upon which the lease-deed dated 17.02.1964 was executed. As per averments made in the complaint a suit for partition Civil Suit No. 18/2005 was filed by respondent-Shri Dushyant Singh against respondent-Shri Hemant Singh and Smt. Vasundhara Raje in the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur and the aforesaid respondents in criminal conspiracy with other respondents and some unknown officials of the Central and State Government fraudulently, dishonestly and by misusing their official position and without any legal authority entered into compromise on 17.05.2007 and by committing fraud upon the aforesaid Court obtained a decree in respect of the land in dispute in their favour and later on the partition decree was got registered by paying only Rs. 10,000/- as stamp duty, whereas looking to the market value of the property stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 105 crores was to be paid. It was further averred in the complaint that respondent-Smt. Vasundhara Raje, the then Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan obtained pecuniary advantages and by misuing her official position as Chief Minister by entering into criminal conspiracy with other accused wrongfully, dishonestly and fraudulently grabbed the land in dispute and the aforesaid conduct of the accused-persons is offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred "the Act") read with Section 120-B, 420, 166, 167, 169, 175, 217, 218, 409, 466, 467, 468, 469 & 471 IPC. The learned Court below after hearing the counsel for the petitioners vide impugned order dated 30.10.2013 dismissed the complaint by recording following reasons:

"(1) As per allegations made in the complaint offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 466, 467, 468, 469 and 471 IPC have been committed in respect of a document produced in a Civil Court in the form of a compromise deed and, therefore, cognizance can not be taken except upon a complaint made by that Court. The petitioners are not entitled to file complaint for the aforesaid offences.

(2) As per Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, investigation cannot be undertaken in respect of offences under the provisions of the Act except with the previous approval of the Central Government where such allegation relates to the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above and in the present case no such approval has been obtained.

(3) For offences punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act by a public servant cognizance cannot be taken by the Court unless prosecution sanction is granted under Section 19 of the Act by a competent authority and in this case no such sanction has been granted."

3. It was observed by the learned Court below that in view of the above reasons, if the complaint filed by the petitioners is sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., it would tantamount to violation of the aforesaid legal provisions whereas the aforesaid provisions have been enacted to provide protection to a public servant for acts done by him in bonafide discharge of his duties as public servant. It is to be noted that it was also averred in the complaint that prior to the submission of the complaint in the Court below, petitioners sent a written report by speed post for registration of FIR for aforesaid offences to Director, CBI, New Delhi, but under the influence of the accused, necessary steps were not taken for registration of FIR and investigation.

4. In support of the petition, first of all it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that complaint was filed by the petitioners with a prayer to send it under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to CBI to register FIR and to undertake investigation thereupon and, therefore, at this stage of the proceedings prosecution sanction under Section 19(1) of the Act was not required as the same is required only at the stage of taking of cognizance for an offence committed by a public servant under the provisions of the Act. It was further submitted that Court takes cognizance of an offence when it applies his judicial mind to the allegations made in the complaint for the purpose of to proceed further in a particular way, but when the Court merely sends the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR and investigation, it is without taking cognizance and, therefore, it has wrongly been held by the learned Court below that without sanction the complaint is not maintainable. It was submitted that the law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar and Others Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Another, (2013) 6 ABR 895 : (2013) 10 AD 386 : (2014) CriLJ 1 : (2013) 13 JT 127 : (2013) 4 RCR(Criminal) 586 : (2013) 12 SCALE 283 : (2013) 10 SCC 705 is not applicable at the stage as it is well settled legal position that prosecution sanction is required only at the stage of taking of cognizance and not when complaint is sent for registration of FIR and investigation.

5. Secondly, it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that in the facts and circumstances of the case sanction under Section 19(1) of the Act was not required to be obtained as respondent-Smt. Vasundhara Raje abused and misused office of Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan which she was holding as a public servant at the time of the alleged offences but when the complaint was filed, she ceased to hold the office of Chief Minister which she allegedly abused/misused. Although, at the time of filing of the complaint and when the Court below was called upon to take cognizance, the respondent was holding an office as public servant as M.L.A. but it being in a different capacity, provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act were not applicable and sanction was not required. It was further submitted that prosecution sanction is not required merely by the reason that Smt. Vasundhara Raje presently also is holding the office of Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan as she has not misused or abused her present office as Chief Minister, but allegation is that she misused the office of Chief Minister which she was holding in the year 2007. It was also submitted that it is well settled legal position that if a public servant no more holds the office which he has misused as public servant at the time of taking of cognizance, prosecution sanction under Section 19(1) of the Act is not required.

6. Thirdly, it was submitted that Section 195 Cr.P.C. is applicable only when the document in respect of which the offence has been committed, at the time of such commission, was in the custody of the Court and not when it was forged and fabricated before it was produced in the Court. In the present case, as per allegation made in the complaint it is the case of the petitioners that the respondents entered into criminal conspiracity and in pursuance of the same, they prepared a forged and fabricated compromise in the form of an agreement and then it was filed in the Court. According to learned Senior Counsel in such fact situation Section 195 Cr.P.C. is not applicable, but the learned Court below without properly appreciating the allegations made wrongly held that the complaint is not maintainable as it has not been filed by the Court concerned.

7. Fourthly, it was submitted that in view of the fact that Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act has been struck down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, question of permission of the Central Government does not arise to undertake investigation in the case against any of the respondents.

8. Fifthly, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that otherwise also this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is empowered to direct the CBI to undertake investigation in the case after registering FIR. According to learned Senior Counsel at this stage of the proceedings only prima facie has to be seen whether from the allegations made in the complaint aforesaid offences or some of them are made out or not. It was submitted that at the time of the alleged incident respondent-Smt. Vasundhara Raje was Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan and she abusing her office as Chief Minister entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused and fraudulently and dishonestly to grab the land in dispute which belongs to the Central Government prepared a forged and fabricated agreement and committing fraud upon the Court obtained partition decree concealing a material fact that the property in dispute is a public property belonging to the Central Government. Not only that, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy she abusing her office as Chief Minister got the decree registered paying only an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as stamp duty whereas as per the market value of the property stamp duty of several crores of rupees was payable and, therefore, she caused huge loss to the Government and obtained pecuniary advantage. It was submitted that all these acts on the part of the respondent prima facie amount to offence under Clause (c) & (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. It was also submitted that the respondents by their respective acts misappropriated the property belonging to the Government whereas it was entrusted to them by way of lease-deed dated 17.02.1964 and by letter dated 09.03.1974 only for the limited purpose of personal use and possession and they were having control over it on behalf of the Central Government. It was pointed out that respondent-Smt. Vasundhara Raje filed an affidavit to the effect that the property in dispute has been transferred in favour of third parties and, therefore, such transfer amounts to misappropriation. It was further submitted that it is well settled legal position that if the allegations made in the complaint or information given to the police prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence, police is bound to register FIR and undertake investigation.

9. In support of her submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the cases of Gopal Das Sindhi and Others Vs. The State of Assam and Another , R.R. Chari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 207 : (1951) CriLJ 775 : (1951) 2 SCR 312 , Dilawar Singh Vs. Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh and Another, AIR 2006 SC 389 : (2005) CriLJ 145 : (2005) 9 JT 476 : (2005) 9 SCALE 200 : (2005) 12 SCC 709 : (2005) AIRSCW 6021 : (2005) 7 Supreme 524 , Anil Kumar and Others Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Another, (2013) 6 ABR 895 : (2013) 10 AD 386 : (2014) CriLJ 1 : (2013) 13 JT 127 : (2013) 4 RCR(Criminal) 586 : (2013) 12 SCALE 283 : (2013) 10 SCC 705 , Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, AIR 2005 SC 2119 : (2005) CriLJ 2161 : (2005) 3 JT 195 : (2005) 4 SCC 370 : (2005) 2 SCR 708 : (2005) 1 UJ 675 , Parkash Singh Badal and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2007 SC 1274 : (2007) CLT 567 Supp : (2007) 1 JT 89 : (2006) 13 SCALE 54 : (2007) 1 SCC 1 : (2006) 10 SCR 197 Supp : (2007) AIRSCW 1415 : (2006) 8 Supreme 964 , Abhay Singh Chautala Vs. C.B.I., (2011) 7 JT 313 : (2011) 3 RCR(Criminal) 443 : (2011) 6 SCALE 658 : (2011) 7 SCC 141 : (2011) 3 SCC(Cri) 1 : (2011) 4 UJ 2653 Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others, (2013) 12 AD 209 : AIR 2014 SC 187 : (2014) CriLJ 470 : (2013) 6 CTC 353 : (2014) 1 JCC 1 : (2013) 14 JT 399 : (2013) 4 RCR(Criminal) 979 : (2013) 13 SCALE 559 : (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCJ 68 and Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 2014 SC 2140 : (2014) AIRSCW 2930 : (2014) 7 JT 474 : (2014) 2 RCR(Criminal) 822 : (2014) 6 SCALE 146 : (2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 4 SCJ 468 .

10. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma and learned Additional Advocate General Shri Anurag Sharma representing the State of Rajasthan raised the following grounds:--

"(1) A Magistrate has no authority under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct CBI to register FIR and undertake investigation on the basis of a complaint. The Court below has original jurisdiction and it has been constituted to inquire into or try cases in respect of offences under the Act investigated by CBI and after investigation charge-sheet is directly submitted before it and, therefore, the Court below is not empowered to direct CBI to investigate a case on the basis of a complaint filed before it.

(2) Prosecution sanction under Section 19(1) of the Act is required even at the stage of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in absence of prior sanction by a competent authority complaint cannot be sent for registration of FIR and investigation.

(3) As per allegations made in the FIR it is alleged that property belonging to Central Government has been misappropriated by the respondents, but no complaint of any kind has been lodged till date by it. The petitioners are not concerned with property in any manner and, therefore, they are not entitled to file the complaint and seek order from the Court for registration of FIR and investigation thereupon.

(4) Even if for the sake of arguments allegations made in the complaint are taken to be true and correct even then no offence of any kind is disclosed even prima facie requiring investigation. The petitioners are in the habit of filing such complaints and present complaint has also been filed with the sole purpose of harassing and pressurising the respondents."

11. In support of their submissions, they relied upon the cases of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, AIR 2001 SC 668 : (2001) CriLJ 968 : (2001) 1 JT 624 : (2001) 1 SCALE 250 : (2001) 3 SCC 333 : (2001) 1 SCR 472 : (2001) 1 UJ 441 : (2001) AIRSCW 305 : (2001) 1 Supreme 263 , Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 907 : (2008) 106 CLT 354 : (2007) 13 JT 466 : (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2007) 12 SCR 1100 : (2008) AIRSCW 309 : (2008) 8 Supreme 226 and also upon the case of Anil Kumar and Others Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Another, (2013) 6 ABR 895 : (2013) 10 AD 386 : (2014) CriLJ 1 : (2013) 13 JT 127 : (2013) 4 RCR(Criminal) 586 : (2013) 12 SCALE 283 : (2013) 10 SCC 705 .

12. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law.

13. My findings with reasons are as below:

"(1) In the light of the latest view taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa (supra) contention made on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that at the stage of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. sanction under Section 19(1) of the Act is not required cannot be accepted. In the aforesaid case the question directly in issue before the Hon''ble Court was whether the Special Judge/Magistrate was justified in referring a private complaint made under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for investigation in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without the production of a valid sanction order under Section 19 of the Act. Hon''ble Court considered the issue whether the requirement of sanction is a pre-condition for ordering investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., even at a pre-cognizance stage. Hon''ble Supreme Court after considering the relevant provisions of the Act and several previous decisions in very clear words held that in absence of previous sanction the Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant while invoking powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In this case Hon''ble Supreme Court also considered the meaning of the expression "cognizance" appearing in Section 19(1) of the Act and it was held that the word "cognizance" has a wider connotation and not merely confined to the stage of taking cognizance of the offence. It was also held that a Special Judge is deemed to be a Magistrate under Section 5(4) of the Act and, therefore, clothed with all the magisterial powers provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a private complaint is filed before the Magistrate, he has two options. He may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C. or proceed further in enquiry or trial. A Magistrate, who is otherwise competent to take cognizance, without taking cognizance under Section 190, may direct an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate, who is empowered under Section 190 to take cognizance, alone has the power to refer a private complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was also held that where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. It was held that the Magistrate while exercising his powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. could not act in a mechanical or casual manner and go on with the complaint after getting the report. As per facts of the case, the appellants of that case filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge and the same was referred for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to police. The order was challenged before High Court on the ground that without being accompanied by a valid sanction order the complaint could not have been entertained by the Special Court and it could not have been sent for investigation. High Court took the view that the Special Judge could not have taken notice of the private complaint unless same was accompanied by a sanction order, irrespective of whether the Court was acting at a pre-cognizance stage or the post-cognizance stage, if the complaint pertains to a public servant who is alleged to have committed offences in discharge of his official duties. Hon''ble Supreme Court upheld that view and dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the complainant.

In the case of Ramdev Food Products Private Limited Vs. State of GujaratAIR 2015 SC 1742 : (2015) CriLJ 2382 : (2015) 2 JCC 994 : (2015) 2 RCR(Criminal) 372 : (2015) 3 SCALE 622 , a bench of three Hon''ble Judges of the Supreme Court has held that direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is to be issued only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone the issuance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under Section 156 Cr.P.C. is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or the weighing the interest of justice, it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued. It was also held that a direction by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can not be given mechanically. Where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is required to apply his mind.

In the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others(2015) 4 AD 242 : AIR 2015 SC 1758 : (2015) CriLJ 2396 : (2015) 2 Crimes 209 : (2015) 2 Crimes 179 : (2015) 2 JCC 974 : (2015) 2 RCR(Criminal) 1034 : (2015) 4 SCALE 120 : (2015) 130 SCL 472 , Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that the duty cast on the Magistrate while exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be marginalized. The power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. warrants application of judicial mind. A Court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 Cr.P.C.. The Magistrate exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to remain more vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. He has to bear in mind that sending the matter for investigation would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. There has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. while filing a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A principled and really aggrieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when perverted litigants take this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts must be made to scuttle and curb the same.

(2) It is now well settled legal position that if on the date on which the Court is called upon to take cognizance, the accused is not a public servant, there would be no necessity to take sanction as required under Section 19(1) of the Act. It is also settled that if the accused continues to be a public servant, but in a different capacity or is holding a different office than one which is alleged to have been abused or misused, still there will be no question of sanction. In the present case, as per allegations made in the complaint, respondent-Smt. Vasundhara Raje abused/misused office of Chief Minister which she was holding at the time when the alleged offences were committed, but at the same time it is not disputed that presently also she is holding the office of Chief Minister of State of Rajasthan although when the complaint was filed or the impugned order was passed she was not holding the same office although she was a public servant in a different capacity i.e. an MLA. No authority has been cited on behalf of the petitioners taking a view that if a person as public servant has abused a particular office and thereafter he ceased to hold that office but he again assumes same office which he allegedly abused earlier, still prosecution sanction would not be required. Looking to the fact that the authority competent to grant prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Act would be same at both the time i.e. when the office was abused and when cognizance is proposed to be taken, I am of the considered view that cognizance cannot be taken in absence of a valid sanction.

(3) In the light of view taken by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, AIR 2001 SC 668 : (2001) CriLJ 968 : (2001) 1 JT 624 : (2001) 1 SCALE 250 : (2001) 3 SCC 333 : (2001) 1 SCR 472 : (2001) 1 UJ 441 : (2001) AIRSCW 305 : (2001) 1 Supreme 263 , learned Court below having original jurisdiction was not competent to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to CBI, It has clearly been held by the Hon''ble Court that Section 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 do not confer power on a Magistrate to order CBI to conduct investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It cannot be disputed that the Court below has been constituted as a Court of original jurisdiction to inquire into and try cases for offences under the provisions of the Act in which investigation has been conducted by CBI. It can not also be disputed that after investigation charge-sheet is filed directly before the Court below and after taking cognizance it proceeds further in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. and for the present purpose position of Court below is similar to a Magistrate. As the Court below is not competent to direct CBI to undertake investigation of the case, the complaint is not maintainable on that ground alone as only prayer made by the petitioners is to send the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to CBI.

(4) So far as non-maintainability of the complaint due to bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is concerned, in view of the fact that as per allegations made in the complaint, the document in question was prepared by the respondents prior to its filing before the Court, it was wrong on the part of the Court below to hold that the complaint is barred as it is now well settled legal position that the bar of aforesaid provision is applicable only when forgery in respect of a document is committed while such document is in the custody of the Court.

(5) In view of the fact that after the impugned order was passed, a Constitution Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramanyam Swami v. Director CBI & Anr. (supra) has struck down Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, bar of said provision is no more applicable and the complaint cannot be held to be not maintainable merely by reason of absence of prior permission by the Central Government.

(6) So far as direction by this Court while exercising its inherent powers conferred upon it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to CBI to undertake investigation in the present case is concerned, it is now well settled legal position that such direction can be issued only in a rare and exceptional case. In the case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another, AIR 2002 SC 2225 : (2002) CriLJ 2942 : (2002) 1 JT 286 Supp : (2002) 4 SCALE 455 : (2002) 5 SCC 521 : (2002) 2 SCT 1090 : (2002) AIRSCW 2333 : (2002) 4 Supreme 91 , Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that although High Court has power to order a CBI enquiry, but that power should be exercised only if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material discloses prima facie a case calling for investigation by the CBI or by any other similar agency. A CBI enquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes some allegations. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others etc., AIR 2012 SC 364 : (2012) CriLJ 1001 : (2012) 1 Crimes 44 : (2011) 14 JT 213 : (2012) 1 RCR(Criminal) 126 : (2011) 3 SCALE 394 : (2012) AIRSCW 207 : (2011) 8 Supreme 577 , Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that a Constitutional Court can direct the CBI to investigate into the case provided the Court after examining the allegations in the complaint reaches a conclusion that the complainant could make out prima facie case, a case against the accused. CBI cannot be directed to have a roving enquiry as to whether a person was involved in the alleged unlawful activities. The Court can direct CBI investigation only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is of the view that the accusation is against a person which by virtue of his post could influence the investigation and it may prejudice the cause of complainant and it is necessary to do complete justice and make the investigation credible."

14. In the case of Prof. K.V. Rajendran Vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Others, (2013) 9 AD 181 : (2013) CriLJ 4464 : (2013) 5 CTC 310 : (2013) 4 RCR(Criminal) 745 : (2013) 10 SCALE 513 : (2013) 12 SCC 480 a Bench of three Hon''ble Judges of Supreme Court has observed that the power of transferring investigation from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI must be in rare and exceptional cases where the Court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instill confidence in the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having a fair, honest and complete investigation and particularly, when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies.

15. In the case of State of West Bengal and Others Vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others, AIR 2010 SC 1476 : (2010) 2 JT 352 : (2010) 2 SCALE 467 : (2010) 3 SCC 571 : (2010) 3 SCR 979 : (2010) 2 UJ 1047 , a Constitution Bench of Hon''ble Supreme has clarified that the extraordinary power to transfer the investigation from State investigation agency to any other investigating agency must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national and international ramification or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.

16. In the present case, the complaint was filed when none of the respondents was holding a high office like that of Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan and prior to the filing of the complaint necessary steps were not taken by the petitioners for investigation of the alleged offences by local police and even in the complaint it has not been averred that a fair, honest and fair investigation is not expected at the hands of the State agency and what are the exceptional circumstances and special features of the case requiring investigation by CBI only.

17. After going through the allegations made in the complaint and the material filed alongwith the petition, I also do not find any special circumstance and special features of the case warranting investigation by CBI.

18. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.