Megacity (Bangalore) Developers And ... vs Sfio (Serious Fraud Investigation ... on 12 June, 2015

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Megacity (Bangalore) Developers And ... vs Sfio (Serious Fraud Investigation ... on 12 June, 2015

Bench: A. N. Venugopala Gowda

                         -1-




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2015

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A. N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.350 OF 2014
BETWEEN:


1.   MEGACITY (BANGALORE) DEVELOPERS &
     BUILDERS LTD.,
     MEGA TOWERS,
     NO.120, KENGAL HANUMANTAIAH ROAD
     BANGALORE-560 027
     REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
     SHRI C.P.YOGESHWARA

2.   SHRI C.P.YOGESHWARA
     S/O PUTTAMADEGOWDA
     AGED 49 YEARS
     MANAGING DIRECTOR
     MEGACITY (BANGALORE) DEVELOPERS
     & BUILDERS LTD.,
     NO.464, 1ST "G" CROSS,
     2ND PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE
     BANGALORE-560 085

3.   SHRI C.P.GANGADHARESHWARA
     S/O PUTTAMADEGOWDA
     AGED 47 YEARS
     WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR
     MEGACITY (BANGALORE) DEVELOPERS
     & BUILDERS LTD.,
     NO.367, 1ST "E" CROSS,
                           -2-




       2ND PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE
       BANGALORE-560 085
                                    ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.KIRAN S. JAVALI & CHANDRASHWKARA K, ADVs.)

AND:

SFIO (SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE)
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
II FLOOR, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN
CGO COMPLEX
NEW DELHI-110 006
                                    ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.P.PUTTASIDDAIAH, CGSC.,)

     THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 23.02.2012 IN CC.
NO.32/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ACMM, BANGALORE
AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT AS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

     THIS CRL.P. IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

The petitioner, an accused in the case pending before the Court below, being aggrieved by the action of the learned Magistrate, in taking cognizance and issuing the process for the offences punishable under Sections 403 and 409 of IPC, filed this petition seeking quashing -3- of the said order and to hold the complaint as not maintainable.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner seeks time.

3. Perused the petition and annexed documents.

4. Since the impugned order can be assailed in a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C., as has been held by the case of Urmila Devi Vs. Yaduvir Singh, (2013) 15 SCC 624, this petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to avail the said statutory remedy.

All contentions raised in this petition are left open. -4- The time taken in prosecution of this petition from 06.01.2014 till date shall stand excluded, if the revision Court is approached for relief, on or before 30.06.2015.

Certified copies produced along with this petition be returned to the learned advocate for the petitioner.

Interim order passed in this petition shall operate till the date of filing of revision petition or 30.06.2015, whichever is earlier.

Sd/-

JUDGE GH

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court