Delhi High Court Declines to Interfere With Order Quashing CBI Notice to Retired Judge IM Quddusi

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order quashing a notice issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to retired High Court judge Justice IM Quddusi in connection with a corruption probe, holding that the notice exceeded the scope of powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The CBI had issued the notice under Section 91 CrPC, seeking details relating to Justice Quddusi’s mobile phone numbers, bank accounts and information concerning his domestic staff for the year 2017. 

The trial court had earlier set aside the notice, observing that Section 91 permits authorities to seek production of existing documents or objects, but does not empower them to compel an individual to create or compile information.

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court agreed with this reasoning, noting that the impugned notice effectively required the accused to recall facts, apply his mind and furnish details not contained in identifiable documents. The Court held that such an exercise falls outside the statutory limits of Section 91.

Justice Quddusi had also argued that the notice violated the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The High Court found no error in the trial court’s conclusion and declined to interfere with the quashing of the notice.

The case arises from allegations relating to an alleged conspiracy to influence judicial proceedings involving a private educational institution. The High Court’s ruling reiterates the limited scope of investigative powers under Section 91 CrPC and reinforces safeguards against testimonial compulsion in criminal investigations.

Description: The Delhi High Court has upheld an order quashing a notice issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to retired High Court judge Justice IM Quddusi in a corruption-related investigation. The notice, issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sought details of Justice Quddusi’s mobile phone numbers, bank accounts and information relating to domestic staff for the year 2017. A trial court had earlier set aside the notice, holding that Section 91 empowers authorities to seek production of existing documents or objects, but does not permit compelling an individual to create or compile information. Agreeing with this view, the High Court observed that the notice required the accused to recall facts and furnish details not contained in identifiable records, which falls outside the statutory scope of Section 91. The Court also noted the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The ruling reiterates limits on investigative powers in criminal proceedings.