Karnataka High Court
Sharan Desai, Ms Usa vs The State By Mahadevapura Police ... on 10 October, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.45644 OF 2013(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sharan Desai, MS USA
Specialized in Architecture
Urban Design and City Planning
S/o.Late Shri.Hanamant Rao Desai
Senior Advocate, EX MLA Afzalpur Taluk
Age 52 years, R/at.No.20/39, 3rd Cross
4th Block, Kumara Park West
Bangalore-560 020.
...Petitioner
(By Shri.C.R.Patil, Adv.,)
AND:
1. The State by Mahadevapura
Police Station, Singayyanapalya
Whitefield Main Road
Bangalore-560 048
Represented by its P.S.I.
2. M/s.Oracle Financial Services
Software Limited (Oracle Corporation)
Global Axis Unit-1
# 152, EPIP Zone Hoodi Village
Whitefiled
Bangalore-560 066.
2
3. Mr.Chaitanya M Kamath
Major
Managing Director and CEO
M/s. Oracle Financial Services
Software Limited, Global Axis Unit-1
# 152, EPIP Zone
Hoodi Village, Whitefield
Bangalore-560 066.
4. Mr.Sajan Mathai
Major
Director, Human Resources, Major
Customer Services Organization
Compliance Officers
Oracle India Pvt Ltd.,
Oracle Technology Park 3
Bannerghatta Road
Bangalore-560 029.
5. Mr.K.K.Davis
Major
Vice President, Human Resources
& Training, M/s.Oracle Financial
Services Software Limited
Global Axis Unit-1, # 152 EPIP Zone
Hoodi Village, Whitefield
Bangalore-560 066.
6. Mr.Frank Brienzi
Major
Senior Vice President and General Manager
Oracle America Inc
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood Shores
California, CA 94065.
7. Ms.Tony Holck
Major
Human Resources Business Partner
Oracle America Inc
500 Oracle Parkway
3
Redwood Shores
California, CA 940 65.
8. Mr.Vivek Govilka
502, Octavious, High Street
Hiranandani Gardens, Powai
Mumbai-400 076.
...Respondents
(By Shri.B.Rajasubrahmanya Bhat, HCGP for R-1)
This Writ Petition is filed under articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to declare that the order
dated 07-08-2012 & 09-08-2012 passed in Criminal Petition
No.2746/2012 vide Annexure-D on the file of this Hon'ble
High Court is Non EST & Nullity.
This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for following reliefs:
"Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to:
1. Issue a writ in the nature of declaration, declaring that the order dated 07-08-2012 and 09-08-2012 passed in criminal petition No.2746/2012 vide Annexure-D on the file of this Hon'ble High Court is NON EST and a Nullity.4
2. Issue an appropriate order or direction directing the court of Metrolopolitan Magistrate (MMTC-I), Traffic Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore-560 001 to proceed with C.C.No.222/2012 (Crime No.522/2011), with the trial of the said case.
3. Issue any other appropriate writ order or direction as deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Respondent Nos.2 to 8 who had been arraigned as accused in C.C.No.222/2012 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate (MMTC-I), Mayo Hall, Bangalore, filed CrL.P.No.2746/2012 seeking to quash the prosecution launched against them in the said case. The said prosecution had been launched by Mahadevapura Police, on completion of the investigation of the case in Crime No.522/2011 registered on the basis of the report launched by the petitioner herein. In the said petition, the petitioner arraigned as respondent No.2 was represented by his counsel. The said criminal 5 petition was heard and disposed of by a Single Bench of this Court on 07-08-2012 allowing the petition and quashing the charge sheet filed against the petitioners therein. During the course of hearing, the petitioners therein sought reliance on the "No Objection Certificate"
dated 27-11-2006 issued by the Director General of Police and Director Fire & Emergency Services, to point out that the "No Objection Certificate" from Fire Emergency Department cannot be issued in view of the fact the height of the building was 14.43 meters. The learned Judge who disposed of the matter placed reliance on the said letter as one of the circumstances to quash the prosecution. On the following day namely, on 08-08-2012 it appears, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 therein namely, petitioner herein, by bringing into the notice of the learned Judge that "No Objection Certificate"
dated 27-11-2006 referred to in the course of the order, does not relate to the building in question, but it relates to some other building contended that this has resulted 6 in mis-carriage of justice. In the light of the said submission, the matter was listed before the learned Judge for "being spoken to" on 09-08-2012 and again the matter was heard at length and considered order came to be passed on 09-08-2012, wherein the learned Judge after referring to the contentions raised, though accepted that the document dated 27-11-2006 does not relate to the building in question situated in Kundalahalli village, nevertheless, by referring to the very document produced by the petitioner herein which is an endorsement issued by BBMP as to the height of the building in question, opined that obtaining of "No Objection Certificate" from the Fire Emergency Services Department is not required, since the height of the building in question is only 14.39 meters, whereas, as per Bye-law 23.1.1 of 2003, the clearance of the Director of Fire Services is required only in the case of the building with ground floor + four Floors and above (or height of 15 meters and above). It is in the light of the said finding, the learned Judge found that the view 7 already taken does not require any modification. Inspite of such further orders, the petitioner has presented this petition seeking review of the judgment passed by the Court.
3. Having regard to the fact that the ground now sought to be pressed into services for seeking the reliefs as noted to supra has already been adverted to by the learned Judge who passed the order, in his further orders and has assigned independent reasons for holding that the view already taken does not require modification, in my considered opinion there are no circumstances to review the order passed by this Court in the Criminal petition filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 8. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the findings recorded therein, he has to challenge the same before the Superior Court in appeal. In fact as could be seen from Annexure-G, the petitioner filed petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking Special Leave to appeal against the orders dated 07-08-2012 8 & 09-08-2012 passed in Crl.P.No.2746/2012, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 15-10-2012 dismissed the Special leave petition holding that they are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. Thus, the orders passed in Crl.P.No.2746/2012 have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of this, it is not open to the petitioners to seek review of the said order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition seeking the reliefs noted supra which are in the nature of review of the orders passed by this Court is not tenable. Therefore, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB