Karnataka High Court
C.P. Yogeswar vs Sfio (Serious Fraud Investigation ... on 20 September, 2022
Author: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3942/2020
BETWEEN:
1. C.P.Yogeswar,
S/o.Puttamadegowda,
Aged about 55 years,
Managing Director,
Megacity (Bengaluru) Developers and
Builders Ltd.,
Bengaluru - 560 085.
R/o. No.367, 1st 'E' Cross,
2nd Phase, BSK 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
2. Ms. Manju Kumari,
D/o. Narayanlal,
Aged about 46 years,
No.4809, Koncept Residency,
Nandi Enclave, II Cross,
BSK 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 085.
R/o. No.367, 1st E Cross,
2nd Phase, BSK 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 085.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Kiran S.Javali, Senior Counsel for
Sri Chandrashekara K., Advocate)
2
AND:
SFIO (Serious Fraud Investigation Office),
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Government of India,
II Floor, Paryavaran Bhavan,
CGO Complex,
New Delhi - 110 006,
Rep. by Assistant Director.
... Respondent
(By Sri. Madhukar Deshpande, Advocate)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 16.12.2019 and
Spl.C.C.No.376/2018 passed by the LXXXI Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-82) (Special
Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to
elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka and discharge
the petitioner.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The admitted facts being that the proceedings were transferred to the Special Court headed by a Sessions Judge in terms of the order of this Court dated 26.02.2018. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings since then have proceeded before the learned Sessions Judge. It is submitted that cognizance was taken for the offences 3 punishable under Sections 415, 420, 120-A and 120-B of IPC, all of which are triable by the Court of Magistrate. It is submitted that direction to constitute a Special Court would require setting up of Special Court for trial of cases either by a Sessions Judge or by a Special Judge who is a Magistrate as regards offence triable by the Magistrate. Accordingly, it is submitted that the proceedings before the Special Court headed by a Sessions Judge with respect to offences triable by the Magistrate is non est.
2. Perused the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in W.P.No.699/2016 in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and Another. Paragraph No.9 of the said judgment reads as follows;
"9 The above directions do not mandate the High Courts to transfer cases which are triable by Magistrates to Sessions Courts. The directions contained in the Order dated 4 December 2018 do not supplant the jurisdictional provisions contained either in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in other special enactments governing the trial of offences 4 governed by those enactments. The directions of this Court mandate the assigning and allocation of criminal cases involving former and sitting legislators to Sessions Courts or, as the case may be, Magisterial Courts. This has to be in accordance with the governing provisions of the law as applicable. Consequently, where a case is triable by a Magistrate under the Penal Code, the case would have to be assigned/allocated to a Court of a Magistrate vested with jurisdiction and the Order of this Court dated 4 December 2018 cannot be construed as a direction requiring the trial of the case by a Sessions Court. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, no Magisterial Courts have been designated as Special Courts for the trial of cases triable by Magistrates in terms of the directions of this Court dated 4 December 2018. The Notification issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 16 August 2019 is based on an evident misconstruction of the directions contained in the Order of this Court."
3. It is clear that the Special Court would be either headed by a Sessions Judge or by a Magistrate and cases 5 will have to be allotted depending on who is the competent judge to try the offences concerned. In the present case, noting that the offences referred to above are triable by a Magistrate, the case ought to be relegated to the Special Court headed by a Magistrate.
4. Learned counsel representing the respondents fairly admits the position of law.
5. Accordingly, matter is relegated to be tried before the Special Judge headed by a Magistrate and the proceedings would resume from the stage of 244 Cr.PC, which is recording of evidence before charge as the present case is a case that arises from a complaint by a public servant under Section 200 of Cr.PC.
6. The order at Annexure-A consequently being passed by the Special Court headed by a Sessions Judge who is not competent to have tried the offences is set aside. Matter to be resumed from the stage of evidence before charge.
6
7. It is however clarified after eliciting views of both sides that all the proceedings prior to such stage need not be interfered with, as there is no demonstrable prejudice.
8. Accordingly, petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE PN