SC to hear on Jan 13 plea for disclosing closure report in enquiry against Mulayam, family in illegal assets case [Read Order]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has decided to consider on January 13 whether a man who filed a PIL against amassing of disproportionate assets by late Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav and family can be given the copy of a CBI report on closure of its preliminary enquiry into the matter.

The Central Bureau of Investigation had told the top court in 2019 that since "no prima facie evidence" of commission of a cognisable offence was found against Mulayam and his two sons Akhilesh and Prateek, the Preliminary Enquiry (PE) was not converted into a criminal case/FIR, and as such, no enquiry was conducted in the matter after August 7, 2013.

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha took note of Mulayam Singh Yadav's death and that the CBI has decided not to proceed to register a criminal case against him.

"We will keep it for hearing on another date because he (petitioner Vishwanath Chaturvedi) has got a point that he be given a copy of the CBI's report," the bench said and fixed the plea for hearing on January 13.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members, said the CBI closed the PE after finding there was nothing to proceed with the registration of a regular case.

Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain also appeared for the respondents.

Mulayam Singh Yadav, 82, the founder of the Samajwadi Party, died on October 10 this year at a hospital in Gurugram after prolonged illness.

Earlier, the Central Bureau of Investigation had told the court in an affidavit that after conducting further enquiry in a "fair, impartial and professional manner", it had independently taken a decision to close the probe against them in accordance with the court's directions in its 2012 verdict.

The petitioner alleged that the CBI had utterly failed to intimate either to this Court or report to the jurisdictional Magistrate or to the Applicant/Petitioner in respect of investigation done and status of the case as directed previously by this court in the two reported judgments of 2007 and operative portion of review judgement of 2012.

[Read Order]