A single Bench of Justice K. Natarajan by observing that as per Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act consent was granted by the State Government for exercising powers and jurisdiction by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment within the State of Karnataka for investigation of all types of cases involving either Central Government servants or officers belonging to Public Sector Undertakings under the Central Government under different State and Central Government Acts, dismissed the petition instituted by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of the first information report.
The present petitions were filed by the petitioner- second accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing first information report filed by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 120- B read with Section 420 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 and also the charge sheet lying pending on the file of XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru.
Facts of the case were such that one Smt. Pooja Tikku, the Deputy General Manager of the Industrial Finance Corporation (IFCI) lodged a written complaint dated May 3, 2017 against the petitioner and others to the CBI alleging that the company VNR Infrastructure Ltd. and the petitioner- second accused being the Managing Director along with the other accused persons committed fraud as alleged in the complaint lodged by IFCI to the tune of Rs.205.02 crores as on 15.03.2016 by way of misappropriation, cheating and criminal misconduct. It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 had availed corporate loan from the complainant bank IFCI to the tune of Rs.190 crores in two cheques, that is, Rs.90 crores on 15.09.2014 and Rs.100 crores on 05.05.2015.
It was further alleged by the complainant that in the month of April 25, the second and third accused acting on behalf of the company approached the complainant for another Rs. 100 crore loan to meet and fulfill the IPO objectives. The same was accepted by the complaint and the loan was granted.
Thereafter, on September 15, 2015, the second accused started defaulting on repayment of the loan amount. On March 15, 2016 the loan amount of the first accused was classified as Non- Performing Asset as the total loan amount along with the interest stood up to 205 crores. In view of the same, the proceedings were initiated under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of the said loan amount by issuing notice under Section 13 (2) of the said Act. Eventually, the Trial Court took cognizance against the accused persons, which was assailed.
In respect of the Trial Court taking cognizance, the petitioner instituted the first petitioner and there was an interim order passed by this Court. The Trial Court separated proceedings of the trial. Thereafter, a subsequent petition was filed and further stay was granted by this Court.
After hearing the submission of both the parties at length ,the Court dealt with the contention of the petitioner stating that the complainant company was not a public sector company and therefore, CBI had no authority to investigate and file chargesheet without prior permission of the State Government.
The
same was refuted by the respondent by stating that the State Government
issued a notification dated January 1, 2005 and with respect to the
same consent was granted by the State Government under Section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act for exercising powers and
jurisdiction by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
within the State of Karnataka for investigation of all types of cases
involving either Central Government servants or officers belonging to
Public Sector Undertakings under the Central Government under different
State and Central Government Acts. Thus, the Court was of the view that
respondent- CBI clearly had the jurisdiction to register and investigate
the case of a person who was a servant under the Central Government
institution in the State of Karnataka.
The Court further observed that IFCI was created by the statue but was subsequently named as Limited Company, and the same was nothing but a Public Limited Company as per the definition of the Companies Act and the same was registered under the Companies Registration Act. Thus, on the aforesaid ground, the proceedings cannot be quashed, the Court noted.
It was further observed that as per the circular issued by the bankers in respect of prevention, classification and reporting frauds, it was stated therein that if fraud is above Rs.3.00 crores, the complaint shall be filed before the CBI Anti Corruption Branch. In the instant case, the first and the second accused approached the third accused who was the General Manager, and all the accused persons conspired together to commit the alleged fraud above the value state above, thus the complaint filed before the CBI was valid, the Court noted.
Thus,
by taking into account all the material available on record, the Court
observed that there was no case made out by the petitioner to quash the
criminal proceedings against him before the Trial Court. Accordingly,
the criminal petitions filed were dismissed.
ocial media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments