Beena Raizada v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & ANR.

$~109 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3125/2024 & CRL.M.As. 12106-07/2024 BEENA RAIZADA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Trilok Nath Saxena, Dr. Shiv Kumar Tiwari, Advocates.

versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Ravi Sharma, SPP for CBI with Mr. Anjani Kumar Rai, Mr. Pradhull Kumar and Ms. Madhulika Rai Sharma, Advocates.

Mr.

Siddharth Handa and Ms.

Shubhangi Arora, Advocates for respondent No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 24.04.2024 1.

By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 03.06.2022 and 28.02.2024 passed by the learned CMM, Rouse Avenue Court, Central District, Delhi in Case No.CBI/15/2021 under Sections 417/511/468/471 and 477 of IPC titled CBI v. Beena Raizada in case arising out of FIR No.RCAC12018A0015 registered in CBI/AC-1/New Delhi.

2.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321.

3.

From a perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2024 at 12:18:44

initially a case being FIR No. RCAC12018A0015 was registered in CBI/AC-1/New Delhi on 12.11.2018. The case was registered under Section 417/511/468/471 and 477 IPC against the present petitioner. On investigation, a closure report was filed. The respondent No.2 preferred a protest petition on which further investigation was directed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Thereafter a supplementary police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C came to be filed, where on the basis of further investigation, again no case was found to be made out against the present petitioner. The notice of the supplementary report was issued to the respondent No.2 and he was apprised of the case. Although vide the impugned order, the concerned Court had given the liberty to file a protest petition, the same is yet to be filed.

4.

Pertinently, at the time of filing of the first protest petition which was entertained, no challenge was made by the petitioner to the same. 5.

Considering the fact that the instant petition is premature, I find no ground to entertain the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending applications.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J APRIL 24, 2024/rd The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2024 at 12:18:44