HC pulls up advocate for seeking CBI probe in delivery of defective shoes; imposes Rs 10,000 cost

The Delhi High Court has pulled up an advocate for re-filing a plea for transferring an FIR lodged against a shoe company for allegedly delivering a defective pair of shoes to the CBI probe.

A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta dismissed the plea with Rs 10,000 cost, saying filing the plea after withdrawing the similar petition filed earlier is "nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the court."

The court, in such circumstances, has power to such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and court from being wasted, the bench said.

It also noted the petitioner who himself claims to be an advocate with 31-year practice has resorted to re-filing the present petition despite the withdrawal of an earlier petition for a petty dispute being investigated in accordance with the law.

Moreover, the counsel is also unaware even of the situations in which extraordinary power must be exercised for investigation by the CBI, it pointed out.

The petitioner purchased a pair of shoes from Woodland in 2019. Since the shoes were found to be defective, an online complaint was made. After a lot of communications, the shoes were taken back for repairs. As he did not receive any response from the company afterwards, he filed a complaint with Karol Bagh police station but no FIR was lodged. He made a complaint to the DCP but again got no response. He filed a case with a magisterial court under Section 156(3) for lodging an FIR which was dismissed. However, after an additional sessions judge issued the direction, the FIR was lodged on December 5, 2020.

In his plea, the petitioner claimed inordinate delay in probe and recovery was a violation of his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, warranting a CBI probe.

The state government submitted that the charge sheet in the matter would be filed in accordance with the law and it cannot be judicially envisaged at this stage to refer such a petty matter to the CBI.

It also referred to the apex court's 2010 judgement in 'State of WB Vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights', wherein it was held the court has to exercise its extraordinary power "sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional circumstances", where the material prima facie discloses a case for calling for the CBI and to provide credibility and instil confidence in the investigation in incidents having national or international ramifications.

Check out DH's latest videos: