- (1.) By this order, we propose to dispose of the prayer for interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d) of this writ petition. In terms of prayer clause (c), the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in respect of FIRs mentioned therein registered at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh and Police Station Economic Offences Wing and at Parliament Street, New Delhi and all other FIRs that have been lodged against the petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of NCT of Delhi but are not within the knowledge of the petitioner and any other FIRs that come to the knowledge of this Court or the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. In terms of prayer clause (d), the petitioner has sought relief of stay of proceedings emanating from the concerned FIRs mentioned therein registered at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh and FIR registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing and at Parliament Street, New Delhi and all other FIRs that have been lodged against the petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of NCT of Delhi but are not within the knowledge of the petitioner and any other FIRs that come to the knowledge of this Court or the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition.
(2.) The substantive relief claimed in the writ petition, by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India for violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India, is to issue mandamus directing CBI to take over investigation of all the FIRs registered against the petitioner in the State of UP and the State of NCT of Delhi respectively in connection with the project by the name "Grand Venice" in the National Capital Region in particular Mall and a Commercial Tower thereof and in respect of which by separate agreements, the company of which the petitioner is the Director, had agreed to sell units in the stated Mall and Commercial Tower as the case may be, to the concerned party. In the alternative, it is prayed that the FIRs filed against the petitioner at different points of time in the State of UP or the State of NCT of Delhi be consolidated and the investigation be entrusted to one agency so that criminal action against the petitioner can proceed at one place.
(3.) As regards transfer of investigation of all the FIRs to the CBI, in our opinion, the facts of the case do not warrant such a relief. Similarly, the first part of the alternative relief claimed by the petitioner to consolidate all FIRs, prima facie, in our opinion, do not merit consideration. However, the second part of the alternative relief may require deeper consideration in light of the submissions made across the Bar by both the parties and the learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of NCT of Delhi. Prima facie, the decision pressed into service to oppose even that relief in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2002 2 SCC 210 does not completely rule out the possibility of entrusting the investigation of all the FIRs to one agency in one State by transfer of FIRs and investigation thereof from one State to another State. That appears to be a debatable issue. Our attention has also been drawn to another three-Judge Bench decision in the State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Rajesh Syal, 2002 8 SCC 158 . As aforesaid, the second part of the alternative substantive prayer being a debatable issue, can be considered at the appropriate stage.;