The Delhi High Court expressed displeasure over an Advocate for again filing a petition seeking to transfer an FIR to the CBI investigation. The FIR was filed against a shoe company, for allegedly delivering a defective pair of shoes.
The bench headed by Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta dismissed the plea with costs of Rs 10,000. The bench also stated that filing the plea after withdrawing a similar petition filed earlier is “nothing but a gross abuse of the court’s process.”
Further, the court also noted that the petitioner, who claims to be an advocate with 31 years of experience, has re-filed the current petition despite the withdrawal of an earlier petition for a minor dispute being investigated in accordance with the law.
Furthermore, the council is unaware of situations in which extraordinary power must be exercised for CBI investigation, according to the report.
Woodland sold the petitioner a pair of shoes in 2019. An online complaint was filed after the shoes were discovered to be defective. The shoes were returned for repairs after extensive communication. The Advocate filed a complaint with Karol Bagh police station after not receiving a response from the company, but no FIR was filed. He filed a complaint with the DCP but received no response later he filed a case with a magisterial court for lodging an FIR under Section 156(3), which was dismissed.
The FIR was filed on December 5, 2020, after an additional sessions judge issued the direction.
In his petition, the petitioner claimed that his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated due to the excessive delay in investigation and recovery, necessitating a CBI investigation.
The state government argued that the charge sheet in the case would be filed in accordance with the law and that referring such a minor matter to the CBI at this stage would be unconstitutional.
Further, The council for the state also referred to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in ‘State of West Bengal vs Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights,’ in which it was held that the court must use its extraordinary power “sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional circumstances,” where the material prima facie discloses a case for calling for the CBI and to provide credibility and confidence in the investigation in incidents with national or international ramifications.