Ashish Harita Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court, in Ashish Harita Vs The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., considered a criminal petition challenging a supplementary chargesheet and the subsequent order taking cognizance against an officer of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The petitioner sought quashing of the supplementary chargesheet dated 12 August 2024 filed in FIR No. 222/2019, registered with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi, and the trial court’s order dated 9 September 2024 in the case titled State Vs Chew Hua Seng, Criminal Case No. 1015/2020. The principal controversy concerned the requirement of prior prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance against a public servant.
The petitioner submitted that he was serving as Assistant Director (Forensic Audit) in the SFIO during the relevant period and was therefore entitled to the statutory protection applicable to public servants. His senior counsel argued that the trial court had taken cognizance and issued summons without obtaining the necessary sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., despite the prosecution having sought such sanction. It was further contended that the complaint had been initiated at the instance of persons accused in proceedings instituted by the SFIO, allegedly to delay and obstruct their prosecution before the Special Court.
Respondent No. 2 opposed the petition and questioned its maintainability. It was submitted that the petitioner had previously filed a revision petition challenging the summoning order but had withdrawn that proceeding before the Additional Sessions Judge on 7 April 2025 on the ground that the revision was not maintainable. On the merits, respondent No. 2 maintained that the trial court had considered the requirement of sanction and concluded that Section 197 Cr.P.C. was inapplicable. According to the EOW’s allegations, the petitioner had colluded with persons accused in the FIR and provided confidential information to obstruct the investigation. Respondent No. 2 argued that such alleged conduct could not be regarded as part of the petitioner’s official duties.
After hearing the parties, Justice Amit Sharma recorded an important development concerning prosecution sanction. The prosecution admittedly had sought sanction from the competent authority, and the request was pending when the impugned order was passed. During the High Court proceedings, it was brought to the Court’s attention that the competent authority had subsequently refused sanction. This decision had been communicated to the investigating agency through a letter dated 1 May 2025, which was produced before the Court and taken on record. The Court issued notice and directed that a status report or response, if any, be filed before the next hearing.
The High Court also referred to its order of the same date in Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 3047/2025, in which interim directions had already been issued concerning proceedings before the trial court. In view of those directions, Justice Amit Sharma held that no separate interim directions were necessary in Ashish Harita’s petition at that stage. The matter was listed for 12 August 2025. The order was interlocutory: it did not finally determine whether prosecution sanction was legally mandatory, nor did it quash the supplementary chargesheet or the summoning order. The significance of the order lies in the Court’s recording of the competent authority’s refusal to grant sanction and its decision to proceed without duplicating the interim protection already addressed in the related SFIO proceedings.
Cases Discussed:
1. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Delhi High Court); CRL.M.C. 3047/2025; 15/05/2025. The High Court referred to its order passed on the same date in the related petition filed by the SFIO. As interim directions concerning the trial court proceedings had already been issued in that matter, the Court considered it unnecessary to pass additional interim directions in the present petition. This was a reference to connected proceedings rather than reliance on a precedent laying down a separate legal principle.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CRL.M.A. 14731/2025 (Exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 3343/2025 & CRL.M.A. 14730/2025 (Interim Stay)
3. The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeks the following prayers:-
“a. Set aside/quash the supplementary chargesheet dated 12.08.2024 filed in FIR no. 222/2019, dated 14.11.2019 registered at PS EOW, Central Delhi against petitioner.
b. Set aside/quash the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed against the present petitioner by the Ld. Trial Court in the case titled ‘State Vs Chew Hua Seng’ bearing Cr Case no. 1015/2020 on FIR no. 222/2019.
Pass any other order/s as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the latter at the relevant time during which the offences alleged to have been committed was admittedly, a public servant serving in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (‘SFIO’) in the capacity of Assistant Director (Forensic Audit). It is submitted that impugned order dated 09.09.2024 taking cognizance with respect to the present petitioner is without any sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in issuing summons to the present petitioner, ignoring the fact that the sanction had been sought by the prosecution. Apart from the aforesaid legal submission, it is pointed out that the complaint in the present case has been initiated on behalf of the accused persons in the complaint filed by the SFIO, in order to delay and sabotage their prosecution pending before the learned Special Court.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf respondent no.2 on advance notice submits that a revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned ASJ was withdrawn vide order dated 07.04.2025, on the ground that the revision petition against the summoning order was non-maintainable. It is submitted that the present petition is not maintainable on account of the fact that the petitioner has already withdrawn the revision petition.
6. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has applied its mind to the fact that offences alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner will not require any sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court after perusing the records of the supplementary chargesheet qua the present petitioner proceeded to summon him by recording its satisfaction that sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is not required in the present case. The aforesaid satisfaction has been recorded on the fact that the case of the Economic Offences Wing (‘EOW’) qua the petitioner, was that he was in collusion with the accused persons in the present FIR and was assisting them by giving confidential information to stall the investigation in the present FIR, which is not within the purview of his official duties.
7. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the records.
8. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the prosecution sanction was sought from the Competent Authority, which was awaited as being recorded in para 16 of the impugned order. It is pointed out that the said sanction has been denied by the Competent Authority and has been communicated to the Investigating Agency vide a letter dated 01.05.2025, which is handed up in Court today, and the same is taken on record.
9. Issue notice.
10. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent no.1 and 3.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 accepts notice.
12. Status report/response, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
13. This Court vide an order of the even date in CRL.M.C. 3047/2025, on a petition filed by the Department/SFIO has passed interim directions with regard to proceedings before the learned Trial Court.
14. In view of the same, no interim directions are required to be passed at this stage in the present petition.
15. List on 12.08.2025.
16. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
