K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner, who is a Non -Resident Indian staying away in the distant shores of Singapore, seeks for direction that a case registered against him in FIR No. 30 dated 05.02.2010 for alleged offences under Sections 65, 66A, 66C, 66D, 66E of Information Technology Act and Sections 419, 420, 408, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120 -B IPC of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Rajpura City, District Patiala (Annexure P -7), is handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation at Delhi through its Director, who is arrayed as 6th Respondent.
(2.) THE facts leading to the complaint against him have come about under the circumstances, which according to the Petitioner, was in retaliation to the Petitioner's several complaints lodged against Respondents No. 4, 10 and 11, who were Directors of a company at Delhi M/s Jay Polychem Limited. The Petitioner was himself an employee in the said company having occupied an executive post after resigning from Reliance Industries where he was alleged to have worked for 13½ years. He had been sent to Houston, Texas (U.S.A.) on official assignment and later shifted to Singapore. While at Singapore, the Petitioner claimed that he had come to know of several alleged illegal activities being committed by the Managing Director of M/s Jay Polychem Ltd. including "money -laundering, large scale duping of Banks and counterparties and rating institutions and circular trading of diamonds" (sic). The Petitioner's allegation was that when he had resigned from service on 18.09.2009 and made a claim on 01.10.2009 for payment of the outstanding dues to him for the services rendered by him, the Respondent refused to acknowledge the Petitioner's claim favourably. The Petitioner, therefore, issued a notice again on 09.11.2009 making a grave imputation of illegal activities of the 4th Respondent, which the Petitioner claimed ruffled the feathers of Respondent No. 4 and to settle scores with him, various frivolous litigations/complaints were filed against the Petitioner and his family members. The differences that started with Petitioner's unsettled claim for wages snowballed, with both parties trading charges one against the other. The Petitioner escalated his charges against the Respondent Nos. 4, 10 and 11 by giving complaints to the Department of Revenue Intelligence, Government of India, Directorate of Enforcement, Central Bureau of Investigation and Commercial Affairs Department, Singapore and these complaints appear to have made them furious. They retaliated by filing a complaint in FIR No. 30 dated 05.02.2010. This complaint was purported to be on the basis of a statement by one Sh. Baldev Singh before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who is arrayed as 7th Respondent. The Petitioner would charge that the complicity of the 7th Respondent with the Respondents No. 4, 10 and 11 could be seen from the fact that the normal procedure of lodging a complaint was before the Station House Officer in charge of the Police Station within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed but he had directly resorted to a complaint to Deputy Inspector General of Police, who forwarded it to the District Attorney, Prosecution, Patiala. He had given an opinion that offences under Information Technology Act had been made out. Since the offences made in the opinion of the District Attorney, were all bailable, just only to harass the Petitioner, additional Sections of 419 and 420 IPC were added to make the offences non bailable. The Petitioner complains that the 7th Respondent himself has very close links with Respondent Nos. 10 and 11, which fact, according to the Petitioner, should be discerned from the fact that at every level, the 7th Respondent took keen interest in the whole investigation although it was not his duty. The 9th Respondent, who was the Investigating Officer on various occasions was alleged to have threatened the family members of the Petitioner and as the sham of investigation proceeded, several other Sections were also included namely 408, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120 -B IPC. Not merely the Petitioner but the whole close members of the Petitioner's family namely his mother, sister and brother -in -law, were sought to be brought within the net of investigation.
(3.) THE facts as detailed in the complaint are to the effect that the Petitioner along with one Amardeep Singh, Preeti, Charanjit Singh, Rahul, his sister and brother -in -law have hosted a website by the name www.jaypolychem.org and various emails were sent to customers, supplier, trade -counter parties, Banks and other institutions to malign the image of Respondent No. 4 and its Directors. The FIR was registered on 05.02.2010 for the alleged creation of website for dissemination of defamatory materials against the Respondent Nos. 4, 10 and 11. Amardeep, who was employee of the 4th Respondent was immediately taken into custody by the police and when he was not prepared to give any statement against the Petitioner, according to the Petitioner, he was tortured to give statement against him. Yet another person Rahul Singh had also been taken into custody from Bombay by the Punjab Police and when he also refused to give favourable statement, he was alleged to have been tortured by the police. The 4th Respondent is also reported to have filed a Civil Suit in CS No. 2223 of 2009 before the Delhi High Court claiming damages and seeking for a pre -publication restraint against him from causing any defamatory material to be distributed in any form.;