Delhi HC Dismisses Lalu Yadav’s Plea to Quash CBI FIR in Land-for-Job Case

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief and former Union Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking quashing of the FIR, chargesheets and the cognisance taken by the trial court in connection with the land-for-job scam being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

A bench led by Justice Ravindra Dudeja issued a notice to the CBI, asking it to file its reply within six weeks. The bench also clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all his contentions before the trial court at the stage of framing of charges.

"The present matter is stated to be listed before the learned Special Judge for arguments on charge. Notwithstanding, the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner would be at liberty to urge all his contentions before the learned trial court at the stage of consideration of the charge. This would be rather an added opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his point and get the same adjudicated. Thus, I find no compelling reasons to stay the proceedings of the trial court," the court ordered.

Notably, the present matter is listed before the Special Judge at Rouse Avenue Courts on June 2 for arguments on the charge.

In its order dated 29 May, the High Court took note of the submissions made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Yadav and Senior Advocate DP Singh, appearing for CBI.

Sibal had argued that the CBI had failed to obtain mandatory sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Yadav and that the trial court also ignored the said illegality committed by the CBI during the investigation.

While placing reliance on various rulings of the Supreme Court and High Court, Sibal asserted that without mandatory approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, the initiation of the enquiries and investigation is invalid. He also argued that there was a delay in the registration of the FIR.

As per Section 17A, it states, "no police officer can conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into the offence committed by a public servant where the offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his public functions without approval of the competent authority. Without such approval, any enquiry/inquiry/investigation undertaken would be void ab initio."

Referring to Section 17A of the PC Act, Sibal stated that the said provision came into effect on July 26, 2018, and an enquiry into the present offence was initiated in 2021, followed by registration of an FIR in 2022. Therefore, the provision would apply.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate D.P. Singh, representing the CBI, vehemently opposed the stay on trial proceedings. CBI submitted that the legal question as to whether Section 17A applies to pre-2018 offences is under consideration before the Supreme Court's Larger Bench, and no final ruling has come as of now.

Last Hearing

On May 29, the High Court heard the plea filed by Lalu Prasad Yadav. At the outset, Senior Adv Kapil Sibal submitted, "......The alleged offence was committed between 2004 and 2009. A closure report was filed. They revived the case in 2022 without obtaining the mandatory Section 17A sanction under the Act, which is required as per Supreme Court judgments."

While referring to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sibal argued that the investigating agency failed to obtain the mandatory prior sanction required to prosecute the RJD chief.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja then asked Sibal when the chargesheets were filed in the present case. In response, Sibal stated that three charge sheets had been filed in 2023. Justice Dudeja further suggested that the question of sanction could be raised before the trial court at the stage of framing charges, to which Sibal responded, "But what do I do if he goes ahead and frames the charges? That’s exactly why I’m before Your Lordship. Please wait for a month or so—we will argue the matter. What’s the hurry? There was a closure report. This is unfair."

He further went on to submit that he is entitled to invoke Section 482 CrPC before the High Court instead of going to the trial court and arguing on charges.

Opposing the plea, the counsel for the CBI contended that Lalu Prasad Yadav misused his position; therefore, sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained. He argued that the case involved serious allegations of abuse of power and conspiracy against Yadav.

“This is a case where public servants were directed to make selections. A job was given in exchange for land—that’s why it is called the land-for-job scam,” he submitted. He further contended that the trial court had rightly taken cognisance of the charge sheets filed and that the present petition is not maintainable at this stage.

The present case, being probed by the CBI and the ED, stems from allegations against Lalu Prasad Yadav, who was then serving as the Union Railway Minister. It is alleged that jobs in the Railways were given in exchange for land parcels.

Title: SHRI LALU PRASAD YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION