Disproportionate assets case: Delhi HC refuses to entertain Sameer Wankhede’s plea seeking protection from search, arrest

The HC thereafter observed, “A perusal of the petition filed under Section 226 shows that the intimation/communication/reference alleged to have been made by Respondent No. 6 to the CBI in relation to the petitioner which petitioner seeks to impugn is not on record. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not have a copy of such communication. The petition is bereft of the very foundation on which it is sought to be premised. Furthermore, absent such communication, the territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the petition is in doubt”.

“The counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh for the same cause of action before a court of competent jurisdiction once there is tangible material on which such petition is founded,” the HC said.

The court allowed the petition to be “disposed off as withdrawn” with liberty granted to Wankhede to adopt appropriate remedies before a competent court, while observing no opinion on the merits of the case had been expressed.

Wankhede argued that the Bombay High Court had protected him in 2021 after a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was ordered by Maharashtra Police without a complaint or a First Information Report (FIR).

He said that he was back in his parent cadre, pursuant to which the “NCB prepared a report that he has disproportionate assets”. Wankhede was posted on deputation to the Narcotics Control Bureau between September 2020 to December 2021. He is currently back in his parent cadre and is posted in Chennai.

“I’m praying for, while I have no issue facing any inquiry, but I should not be put to search, seizure or arrest, and I should be given notice before any action is taken,” Wankhede’s counsel said. He claimed that his superior officer at NCB where he was posted to until December 2021 had intimated to the CBI about him having acquired properties. He further claimed that the said properties were acquired before he joined the Indian Revenue Service and therefore there can’t be a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Although Wankhede claimed that he did not have the actual document based on which he sought protection from the court, he, however, said, “some proceedings, which may have come into being, which I have information of orally, by the CBI may be quashed”.

The court expressed that it cannot act on something which is not before it. “There is no document on which you want me to act on. We are on hypotheticals. There has to be a cogent formulated cause of action. I can’t act preemptively. We don’t know to whom the said letter was addressed to, on what grounds, we don’t know. Territorial jurisdiction will be founded based on what you are trying to impugn which is not there,” the HC judge remarked.

At this point, Wankhede’s lawyer said that if some action was taken against him then the investigating authority will verify the properties in question first. The court said, “What makes you think they will not?”

Wankhede’s counsel, thereafter, withdrew his plea.