You are on page 1of 3



Crl.M.9398/2005 and 4058/2007 in W.P.(Crl)-1537/2004

Reserved on: 29.10.2007

Date of Decision: 04.12.2007

M.M. Tiwari .......Petitioner
Through : Mr.Reetesh Singh with Mr.Surfaz and
Mr.Rajan Dubey, Advocates.


N.C.T. of Delhi and another ... Respondents
Through : Ms.Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel for
State. Mr.Harish Gulati, Standing
Counsel for CBI.
Mr.Arun Birbal with Ms.Raavi Birbal for R-2.


Crl.M. 9398/2005

This application has been made in the writ petition which was disposed of by this
Court vide order dated 21.4.2005. This Court vide the said order had quashed the
FIR No.582/2004 After quashing of the FIR by this Court, CBI made this
application on 13.9.2005 seeking permission of the Court to continue with the
enquiry and to act in accordance with law after conclusion of the enquiry. CBI was
not made a party to the petition in question.

2. The relevant facts are that a complaint dated 10.9.2004 was sent by one Shri
Tapesh Pawar, Jt. Secy. , Govt. of India to Delhi Police as well as to CBI alleging
that Mr.M.M. Tiwari, Managing Director of FISHCOPFED had submitted fake
Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management (Part Time) purportedly issued
by an Institute called Institute of Personnel Management and Industrial Relation,
Patna. On this complaint Delhi Police registered an FIR and proceeded with the
investigation, Mr.M.M. Tiwari, filed a petition for quashing of the FIR on the
ground that he had been exonerated in a departmental enquiry got conducted by the
Department through a retired Police Offcial. SHO of the concerned P.S. also filed a
status report that pursuant to the departmental enquiry conducted through Mr.Sheo
Raj Singh, DIG Retd. on the orders of President NF of Fishermen's Co-operative
Ltd. and coming to a conclusion that certificate was not forged, the complaint was
found not correct and no offence was committed. This status report was filed in
this Court on 21.4.2005. A cancellation report was filed by police before MM.
Considering this status report, this Court passed the order quashing FIR.

3. CBI alleged that the Investigating Officer in this case got mixed up with the
accused. CBI had also initiated criminal enquiry after registering the complaint PP-
DAI-2004-A-0030 dated 4.11.2004 CBI had called Mr.M.M. Tiwari in the office
on 18.3.2005. Despite this fact, the petitioner had not impleaded CBI as a party and
concealed this fact from this Court. It is submitted by CBI that the alleged diploma
of Mr.M.M. Tiwari bears the signatures of one Mr.M.M. Prasad, as the Director of
the Institute and Delhi Police had not recorded the statement of Mr.M.M. Prasad.
However, CBI on enquiry traced Mr.M.M. Prasad and wanted to record his
statement with regard to the genuineness and falsity of document in question.

4. The application is opposed by the petitioner on the ground that re-opening of the
enquiry would amount to double jeopardy for the petitioner. The applicant by
filing the present application is trying to over reach and circumvent all the
procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. The closure report was filed in the FIR by
the Delhi Police who was investigating agency, CBI was not the investigating
agency. CBI has not registered any FIR. Therefore, CBI could not do any
investigation into the case.

5. It is apparent from the record that this Court quashed FIR on the basis of status
report filed by Delhi police wherein police has stated that no crime seem to have
been committed. This Court at no occasion had considered the merits of the closure
report filed by the police and believed that what was stated in the closure report
was bona fidely stated. However, even if a closure report is filed by police, the
case does not come to an end for all times to come. A closure report can be filed by
the police when police is unable to find any clue about the commission of the
crime or according to police, the accused is un-traced or police may come to
conclusion that the report is false. Filing of a closure report does not close the
avenue for the further investigation and re-opening of the case if the police
stumbles upon the evidence and is able to find out who was the offender who
committed the crime etc. The power of further investigation in such cases is always
vested in the investigating agency and investigating agency can continue with the
further investigation even after closure report. In the present case the situation is
peculiar. Delhi Police has filed a status report and a closure report saying that no
crime was committed; whereas CBI was also proceeding with the enquiry and was
trying to find out Mr.M.M. Prasad who was signatory of the certificate to know
whether document was genuine or not. CBI was able to find out Mr.M.M. Prasad.
The report of Delhi Police shows that the alleged institute was running from a
house and the Institute had closed down after a short span of its starting. Despite
the fact that it was an Institute giving degree of MBA, it was not registered any
where in the country.

7. Considering all these facts, I consider that CBI can continue its enquiry and if it
finds that there was substance in the complaint, it can proceed according to law. I
order accordingly.

8. With the above direction, this application stands disposed of. Crl.M.4058/2007
In view of the orders passed in Crl.M.9398/2005, no orders are required to be
passed on this application. The same is disposed of accordingly.