Karnataka High Court
Sri Joseph Chacko vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2008
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
A11-I-1.. EV ' 'V
,nmuLg
111 mrrm 1n11 nntrnm r\-rn trnnnrnrnn in Am 1-nun/N AI' f\'l"I'I':\
111 l.1"1I.?1 l.\.'l'1'1 MUUKI U1' I\1"|..lV.1'U'll..l"\.l\.l"\ I11 £3t\J.V\.n'1.l.4\Jl.'Z..|3
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mr CYRIAC JOSEPH, CHIEF':
AND
THE HON'BLE Mrs JUSTICE':4B.'Q".ENiAGAf{ATHNA.. '*
WRIT PETITION NO.1418=£5F goosismj !?oL;¢E
BETWEEN:
Sri Jaseph Chackzz,
Proprietor, V _-- 3; _
"Crown Plaza'Inter2i1Etionja1Hgoteisij; . V
Resorts" g .
No.346, HHe[1nu3fVfVi;a_1fi,I_1VVRD9.(1V," * '
n............1.....g.. _n-rain n;/Io .
r:)u.I.15u.1u.{c ouu Au'.-ro _ _ .r1:4u1
( By Sri Jkme vargheée S171': R.Krishna Reddy and
M. ,/ s KaI.na.th Kamathg 'Advocates ]
'Kgnnataka
"'IA'I-.;1~nnuFu .I5nIif-:=~"In_§:nnnfnr I 9119-. _in1 'F'.nnII'n.r\
.. ..._..;:,.. .,V ....,-....,V-.;,..,..,...-.... ' ....,............. ......-..,_ ....,,
Central' Cri11?3jg:f_ Eranch (COB) "-
NT Pet, Eangaiore city
' ' 1 'f -- The Off1Aéer-in-charge
{TPo1ice.. Inspector -35 «S!-IQ }
_ Elieginur Police station,
' " .___"'Bar;1galore
'1 'lfiunuena 'Dian-to Wlaf r\1-tnt'u;1-Q
8). \/LUWIL I. Lflflcl. l.'l.CLl.. \..l1II'.l.l(wli3
Association',
Through Shri Chidambara B
Sri Chakra Krupa,
Near Campco Belthangadi
l:l..fl.§.Il.1.|12:l. nululuuu J I '1' A .|."f'
4. Sri Yogesh Rao'
Rcsidmg at No,8(.)
Doddagudde, Udupi
5. Mr Atu1Rao
Dharmashree,
2116 main road, Dot_it_1.a_-a
Udupi -2 w
6. Mr Raju K.Mathew
372, Agape Street
Aunt-ca Hnrnmntnt nae '
I-I. A-Iva t:.\A|'I.rI.. I » .
I I6?' II-l.AlIdlV Isl
Karnataka
7. Mr v.c. zzaka:via[o A '
Vadakepa:gm'hfl"}Eoyse ~ V V'
I-Iarananhnrh'--nri'c+
Pathanarnithitta'Disfriot'._ o
Kerala
3. Mr Babu "J§5rgh'esé=.
KTA C 1.':Jl\'-kg; I39}-uissinfi 1161.'-user
uu.u,... 3,-.§c|.11.-.4, rz flung; L. vnuuy
' 'Rd.6;~---Santacruz EaSt"""
"I11 '(I T flifh
l.l|..I..'l Q1. IC' _r_uuuI.a1.u.yu1
'Konumg. Pgrurkada post
' " ' " « ._ V 'i'ivandr'u:*h -5 Kerala
" _10,"TJ3.Balachandran
~«z~/o Sathgafna,
T 'V12-i512 A, Padurkara
_ 0 Ayyanthole,
" " Dti Trichur, Ker In
g_id_s;1c
*1Doha-Qatar
11. Mr B.Chidambara
Srichakra Krupa,
Near CAMPCO
Belthangady
!'I¢lOVfil'h'lf§'.Od'| ='7/I ()1
¢.'l..l.u.aI.C1.n.€I. 1.'! 'T L.'-
12. Mr Narasimhalu Nagarajan
C4202, A1» Khor Community
P 0 Box 22166, Doha Quatar
13. Mr Ravindra Urudai
UREA-2, PO Box 50001,
U11a_maa_ici.,(,)I.JA_}?'(_3Q, Doha_--Q::Qa:,§t"'~.
14. Mr Refijith .
PO Box 24646, V ~_
Pesian Group, Doha.-Qatar. '
15. Mr Palaniyappgxa L 1 *1
B-16, % Box .231i$t'$ _. . '
Al-Khor Hou:§ing;---- V
15. ...:~ 9.1; Siddmthéiz
PO Box 15224 A
Doha--Qaiar' «.
17. Mr' Rayafath'S11refi;drafi
. Post Bax 319.5009!)
1 QUASCO..'Ro1!i.ng Mm,1 '
111Me$83id» Qatakr1I 15G')
Tixirnothy D'Souza
PO Bax 3511
'Axfadhootha Ganesh Kumar
" 1.F*1at--.No.C-6 12
'*««A1-K1'-mr Housing Camjslex,
1%11mT1Box 22 166, Doha--Qatar
n r-n:n§1n
_\_,-
20. Mr Oth"oti'1 Meetiial Marni Kunh"b-ciulla
Admitting w.h., P 0 Box 3050
Doha-Qatar
21. Purushothaman Ramesh Kumar
Maintenance Dept. Qatar Gas,
PO box 22666, Doha-Qatar
22. Mr Noble Mathew P..11itha.n.a..rn
Qatar Gas Co. Ltd., ».
PO Box 22666 1
Qatar Gaz, Doha Qatar
23. Mr Sanjay Kumar Singh,
Plant Operations ( Utility)
Al-Khor community V
PO Box 22 166 Doha-Qatar" _ 1
24. Mr 'i'umba1**l'}' p°m°""~ ""9" -=--'-dram '-- V. "
J . ' .I\K4IuIl$'C£&l ' 1 [All
C~4102, Al-Khor *«o_r1_1mLinity
F0 Box 22 166, I-.TDoE;1'a:v§Qataf_
25. Mr B.Rama1{1'iShna P'P_r'abh_u
%oducti,6n Suifiérvisfer _ * _
Qatar Vinyl -.Com}§aI1y' L_.td._ .. ' -
PO Box 24440, Dqhafl
26. Mr IIdayi4'Ché.ndi*a$i1eVE§ira Menon
1 1.1...;.--. .. ' .
4, Pu-A1101 '*1Jfifi1.ffi.ufl1t3
Po' Box 22.165 Doha¥Qatar
27; M: i?;;j---:§g;Vxg;aV1_lMuthukrishnan
010902 Aléldil-bi" community
' 6 PG B-3" 2,23 166, Doha-Qatar
iii Mr Pervemba Swaminathan
- 4 i~-Suppi§,r Dept; PO Box 22666
" _Qa_tar..Gas, Doha-Qatar
Ii: ' Mr Mohan Krishna
'B-96, A1-khor Community
" Po Box 22166, Qoha-Qatar
30. Mr N.Renganathan
2 13, Maintenance Workshop,
Rag Gas Qoznpany Ltd
Post Box 24200 Doha-Qatar
31. Mr Jamal Muhammad Rahmathulla
PO Box 50090
Utility Dept. SWJWT, Qa.ar S.ee1Ce.
Messaid, Qatar
32. Mr Jacob Kuruvilla
Kahramaa, Finance Dept
PO Box 41, Doha-{Qatar
33. Mr Ajit Phiiip,
P0 Biox 50090
QASCO (RM-MFG) V
Me.-said, Qatar .
34. Mr Sunny..'fi1omas . _ 3
POBox 9283-"
Doha-Qatar" "
35. Ms Priya
Electronic .Techni<;a1 Associates
PB No.119,"D_oha-Qatar " _
oz 1u..;V n..-;; -1...'
ou. 1v.u.="n. Ix guclé * Lu
1 Po Box 2.113614'
0teDafha--.Qatar
317." 'J Panikulam
Sr Bu;y'er_B~EIvfiL Dept
' 'Qccipentale Petroleum of Qatar Ltd. PD
' " " * Box 2261 1 Doha--Qatar
A .:.f$8."It£1;'A'«Raphy Joseph
ij __"'~i'via:intenance Iiept T
0 .4'_4"PC0B0X 22666,. Doha-Qatar
. - V.1'J0ha--Qatar
39. rvir Jaccb P " braharn
PO Box 3614
Doha-Qatar
40. Mr Vadappally Srinivas
C-4312, A1-Khor community
PO Box 22166, Doha-Qatar
Mir Qhntn Q11
nllnr
"&I '-"'&"I'l 'J HLCQI-Tl
41
(due
c/o Sushila Bhai 6 .
No.397, 6*?" Main, BSKE stage, I
Shrinagar, Bangalore 560 050
42. Ms S.Chidamb-ara
Urea--2. QAFCO, PO Box 50001
Ummsaid, Qatar
43. Mr Ahmed Mulla
PO Bax No.500G1
QAFCO, Messajd
44, Mr Ajit
PO Box No,_22'"i.19 =:.;,_ V
(':Ivi1'wIi)(,:Vi'_'g*Vt*'*Aw 0 0 f 0 6
45. Mr Alexander
Post Box Nr;i;5u55v1 A "
Merch_Partners._ v
A V ' ' . 46.; 'Mr, D'Souza
!Z':---'S:mz9. * - . V
Church Roam}
Shrithandy Past
~.. _ '_ é ' ' 1\/»Ian_ga1ore.:_
A '~45 Mr. Gerald D'Me1le
.I I I JUL'
.Ap_dI}c. Elect
.___"PO:Box 5387
.. _4 "Doha-Qatar
block :
- PO Box 22166,
43. M? Gi'('i't0I1 P
IT Officer
HSBC Bank, Middle--East
'nah 9 -(')s:1'n r
--.... .,,.........
49. Mr P.S.Lingaraju
Pura, Nittur post,
Tumkur, Karnataka 572 223
50. Mr Udaya Chandrasekhara Menan
C-76012, Ai--khor community 1
PO Box 22166, Doha-Qatar
51. Mr Mcharnmed Shamimuddfi~
PO Box 50090 "
QASCO ( RM--MFG)
Messaid, Qatar
52. Mr Neelakantan
C-1202, A1-khor cammulnity _
53. Mr. Patrick 2::
Qatar'v'ifhy'1 _ _
Production Departifngtzt» " _
PO Box 24440, Doha.fQatgr'».4
54. M11 -_Iose1:2)'h .!§rujé.*
..Safet37.?--;'3e:3ar*uniei'1a .?0 Box 4'? ,
Doha=~Qa!¢ar
5-5.' SaI.i1:.i."I{uma1' L11a.i
Po-Box No..-300131
QAFGCJ. Ivieseaeed, Qatar 1.-<.n'.SPON-DENTS
.5 LB.Sreénivasa Gowda, Government Advocate, for R.
* 4 Sari K.1\.-!.."Iatarsg;' for 111.5 and 12.10; nn
' 2.A.-aysociates for R.6 to R8; R.9 served)
60
orders, on this day the Court pronounced the following:
J "g B G E In' 'i°
CYRIAC JOSEPH Q.J.
' -4.:.L: ._ I 4.1..
1} In this "Tit pc
quashing the FIRS given Czn ' e aVNVo;Va.l_of ilenntir
Police station.
2) According to the petition, the
petitioner is the pgopnetort of:a"regie'tered ' Crown Plaza
execute projleet. Crexen Plaza International Hotels
and Resort; and.._iniiited---«.inv"estors for the project, especially
the Nen~Resident_'Indians? (NRIS). The M218 who invested in
Q..'_:., -..d. into A.g_r..em...nts of 9.3.1.; and ...le.. a
."-v
the rnjeri "ente
Ifiii II -C
Cenei_:_rtic':ion_ Agreement the petitioner's firm. wnue Ln
_project was implemented, the NR1 investors] purchasers
'4"'forme_d association called 'Crown Plaza International Flat
'.'_;'~_()ixrnere Association' and made a representation dated
ON-Fl It I-
'2r1il'4 2.005 to the Indian Amhn-M-mlor a. nehamuc-+=-r maim-
--
was forwarded by the Indian Ambassador to the Chief Minister of Karnataka requesting him to take apprepfiate action against the management of M/s In-..rna.,ionm Hetels and "esorts, The (_3h_i_ ',_ _. s_-._.__- .;.;~ _"r M the same to the De-fnity Cofnrnissi _ Bangalore City. who sent it teatime iisoviiee Enquiries), Detective as Narcoties;V« T Pet,' «Eiangaiere City for enquiry. The Deputy Cernmis'siener~--ef..ii-ielice sent a reminder petitioner was 'requesting to investigate the mattetjin action immediately as the matter 'While the investigation in the matter was' priegrevss», separate complaints were received Aiistsif the compiainants and had committed other offenses 'A'i;='V'*i.'reating the said complaints as FIR, Crime % -Nos.7N1/y2eo7,iii 72/2007, 73/2007, 74/2007, 76/2007, ii'i;=7,z2eo7,ii73/2007, 79/2007, 8012007, 3112007, 12012007, i i to-Frhereupon the petitioner and his staff filed Criminal Petition . V. 61' eferred = +_.'_'-.' , 1-\_~1,:.v_'_~ per L 151.: cu. -.,[UI11IlB] --.
, 2151/200 2153/2007, 2154/2007, 2155/2007, 2163/2007, 2164/2007, 2 165/2007, 2 166/2007, 216-007"/2007, 2168/2007, 2169/2007, 2576/2007, FIRs. The said Criminal Petitior{s'V«§'§iere the High Court through a comm-erijh'*order;V--_ d0atedA'A"31_>.10.20O7. In the n1-A .- Aa ad 21 1nonn7....f 4. u:..ah"""vri.'m'.~r and ma hp \"\£ I. " UT \-I': 15"'! 1&5?'-I V'V"i'-'>'l|l I-'\"" $55-45 'I55? aiiegations made .the?. ciearly constituted cognizable %__Vofferice:e,v_ fegiistration of a case and investigation thereon: the Court could not exercise the inhereutpowefs FIRs. Against the order dated 9 1 1 I' I-sir I-'Inn II':-I-'In !'l\I'II'|"' I-'mg 951;'-;I':l\I-\n_I-I In I I P335 IJJ VLI-I-G I-I-I-Ell \I'J|.vII. L, LII-L! EJKILILIIJIIKII ILIKILI /2007 the Hon'bIe Supreme Court of dated 10.1.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme 'Courthdddisjvaoeed of the S.I...P as withdrawn. The order dated IQQALLZQOSHC of the I:Io_1r1'b_Ie Supreme Cou_rt in S.L,P (Cr!) in. A121 Innn
110. 4:1 "I'D 1] AUU me Court to withdraw t...i pe.1..ien '.''.'1!'... a -- nr-.o.e t.-e HLQ Court 1nt,r aha relying on the
181. It is also stated that the petitienetfghash H grievance with regard to severa1~FIRs. ' We express no opinion},Al£'"contentions" :1? at kept open and the speeialh" leave is permitted to be The' ._t3pe}:iai'<_ieat}e petition is, accordingiy, Tispes'ed"of as arithdfawn." In the light of §the:VVerdet- t§upreme Court the petitioner vtr1jt""peti;tienV.under Article 225 of the ;j ngfiiia '-i-_tr*m 355+; 31 432 9 In the Q;-imjpnl 9-. v --------
6 I 97, 74 "5300? 120,120!) 0 9 ,1 1' Hennur Police station heing. investi_ated by CCB i.e., Annexures J to N, P, R , S, T, V, X, Z, Y and AA by way of abuse of process, with male. fide intention and contrary to bein_ investigated COB Annexures J to N, P, R , S, '1', V, X, of abuse of process, contrary to law and ma tam ism elown Why the Hon'ble Sup1__'eine~ of .
.4, -_.. - IR.--s gun 1-- (_1r1_Ine V statutory ptoifisions, and contrary to the law laid VA Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in * . ' violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner "conteine'd in Art. 21 of the Constitution of India; d.) C_'r__.nt __1..h _t_h-- __-d_ further relief as may V be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice." @_..
Judge. While issuing emergent notice to the respondents on ' 23.1.2003, the learned Single Judge passed the following interim order:
"Stay of Annexures-- J to N, P. R, 3. 'r,. AA, subject to deposit of 2. icrores 1] 7.2.2008. ' "
Call on 7.2.2008"
On 7.2.2003, the ir1terirrt~v-._order":_\feeeV_ exe;endedd er a further period of four weeks 'AA'»:§'toed adjourned to 22.2.2003. e*.,se e :1 id.
22.2.2003, it . 2 learned :.t;o1.1_nAee17t'._--fo;ff3~therespondents that in regard to the same mattera PIL'-ie 'Before the Division Bench of the High court; eweeeeeeeee No.2766/2008. Hence, the learned Jt13tit:e.d'fori"'fn_rth;er orders. Pursuant to the said order of the V dd .learned Sin'gle'Judge and on the basis of the request made by counsel for the petitioner, the case was posted jbe'fore"*'the Division Bench on 25.2.2003 along with Writ " '3°t"*'- '"e.2'?55 cf 2008. On 25.2 2008 'eemed ecu"--=' for I IBIS! 14 the petitien-r and the respondents submitted that this case may be heard by the Division Bench itself. Having found that the issues raised in this writ petition are substantially different from the issues involved in 2i3i'::8,, this ea... was separate!" con*-'d'r'd.
1.. ..__ 5} In true meanwhile, oneT.4_P.Baiaehandraje:urepresented2 by his GPA Holder Atul Rao a2es;§g;na¢n¢i1~:¢i;5; filed I.A.ll of 2008 for getting himself resnondent. He also filed LA. No.Ill/200'8t_ the interim o,d-r de._ecl 23.1.2-.2293. 25.2.2008, prayer in I.A.iI of 263$fipleadingjwasxlallowed and the said »":..ailowed to be impleaded as Respondent 10; it
- _ heardearguments of the learned counsel for learned Government Advocate and the learned_'£:ouvnse13--.V.f fr _ _h..r _esp..ndents. By consent of pause the ' It petitien it"if is being' disposed of. 15 altered t" have been committed by him du'*"'"' 'be '""'r" ""
the same transaction. More specifically it is contended that in respect of the same allegations which were subject nfiatter of the complaint submitted by the Crown Plaza Flat Owners A _ -1 ..--.-.V..|__.__..";Vr _ .i_t:1um::1~ _ said Association and they were registered as to the petitioner, such filing of respect of the same offences during the_"'jcou{rse--_ of"~tiie"'same transaction is of the Constitution§£if_._1ndiai sup3$ort"oi' his contention, the petitioner relies"oi;__the__"deeision the Supreme Court in '!'.'.l'.Antoity as Ors. [JT 2001(5) so 4401.
8). _Dis1iuting.. "the: contentions of the petitioner, the 'respondents have filedobjections. H * d9)' to the averments in the statement of ' objectionsliled on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the Indian .A.mbe.'.sa..or, En1.ba-sy of India at Doha, Qatar sent a letter 'ted 22.11 2666 to the Chef rviir'*t'r of n.ui""'ui'itun.u _ enclosing a representation made on behalf of about 70 F330,! ..';;='~_--_-'._.__--J Chief Ministerivjiiiifw e* rnernbers o Association and signed by eight (8) of its members. The purpose of the representation was to seek protecti~sTri.ri'rom Mr.Joseph Chacko, CEO, Crown Plaza Hotel
--.-....
{pe.i..ioner i.- this writ petition)" _or snfesiierv *i.i."a. thei ownership /' investment in a serviceizylapartrnenti 4.1;3isoj'ecttp__icfiied ' 'Crown Plaza Internationali' representation that they had iniivthe project and they own units in when they approached I*.'Ir.Jeenph mvfie shi rights in the respond. He was running any proper returns to them. w'asV.a}so....ti1at they came to know from _ew_p__pe_r reports"that. of the complex had been built
-_ ____ ._........-.. 3 .4 .... . --
_..o 1 gU.»'.'!s.7;1'11l1.tC It ianu and there was some derneutien. The Ai'Al1'i]:Z)V&3;8ti't!;1A_(}I~'yp.i)iii'!,ii_2_(3d out in his letter that there was a growing sense "of in investing savings of Indian expatriates _ in India, 4' he requested the Chief Minister to give his A p[;erso;ie.1 -::.on..id..._ a..1on to the m t .r so that the complainants "*-___"rna'y receiv s tisi n _ forwarded the representation to the Deputy Commissioner of h I C};
enquire in to the matter and take necessary action and report the same. The Deputy Commissioner of Police referred the matter to Shri R.Ramachandran, Police Inspector! Enquiry), Central Crime Branch, Bangmo-e..<l;eeti;aig t,
-14 .... .........:._- .....1 ..-.L_..}L - ...._,_3.__._.L in uuiu an miquuy auu isuuulll. H. rep01"l',._1 issued notice to the petitioner.4_udirecti_ng him on 28.12.2006 for an enquiry intoivithe repre5sentation; submitted to the Chief Minister. the petitioner did. not npenr befe e the. -- ielijee cs-operate v.-.ri..ti the enquiry. % retition No.2897/2007 praying fora Inspector to furnish a copy of ._ with the counter-affidavit filed in the iiamicopy of the representation was 'V n - o n , -. I» A A I' 1-. 4-1..
, 'produced ant. heiice the writ petition was u13"0$6u oi u_'y' uni?' ..C}o1tI't.pon"'~O__1.03.2007 directing the Police Inspector to proceed in accordance with law. The Court also recor't1ed' the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would. fully c_:_--ope_-ate ttrith the Police Iiisfse'-tcr for hoiding the enquir". H""'*'er, "'e pe' * 'ner di' not appear before the Police Inspector or co-operate with the 18 en-"air-'. Thoufi the -etitisner deputsd his assistant one 'I'.T.Madhu, he could not furnish all the required information. On the basis of available information and materiais, the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and his _epo_ _ d_.t_d 06,03,200? to the Deputy Cornznissioner' " of fin! -_ A -_-.__I.-,_.. ...- .u__ __:_1 ,.__._:_:.L V _';._4._'I1..-s.,_'_v ;~._ 1.-- I" 11 C. U lflg [0 IIIIC 3310 FCPOIE, _U.I_l0IlCI'. ELIICI H18 staff conspired and cheated the.4_NRI'inirestor$'i)y. promises and inducing them the project and later refusing to 1' and deliver possession ef the fls.s sen fh es. ened intimidated udelrlnanded the flats or their share oi 6 NR1 investors viz., Narasimhulu - Ramelcrishna P.Prabhu, Ranjith Kumar, RafiJovsep_h;V.'. and Mohan Krishna complaints were registered as Crime Nos.'}6./ ..to.:=.V8..1/2007 for the offences punishable under % ssecusimz 44s,iil4o5, 420, 506 and 120.3 of IPC. The Joint o as City vide his order
- _ ____9'_____ _ I 0 1.1.- 1..-- ...L.'_... 2.... f 4.1.
- ...I...........
L115 U VI:
GD CL.
3:
1- GD C t?' :-
C} _ iehonuplaints to the lat respondent Police Inspector. QM complaint against the petitioner from 60 other NR1 investors through their GPA holder. On the basis of the said eoiiipioint, Crime No.120/2007 was registered for other by 15 NRIs were received byi"th_e' 18* these complaints were registerediaa' 2007 and 153/2007. In the r petitioner filed l""r'IlJ1'¢m in ii no in 1-hn_..!'.Tn1"i~rt-V ,ni7. 0' M 'r"i'r?i'itinnnI ('i-hr (",1°1n'I T4' 'I"'*§'-5.' W'l«IW""'? _£:I* 5fiI\l' 'DLIWVIIJ In 35' I fl\.f$\C4"I-I-I-ICIWJ' %lIIJ' TIUJI and baii in respect of Crime bail was granted subject to 5 But the petitioner did not comply sneh' Thereafter he, throng his _ 'if;-erlied' bail in the 41$. A.C.M.M. Court, in ___he did not appear before the Court. Corioequentiy, Court issued warrant for his arrest. Then % he filed.' ci1;iiiMiee. Petition No.1451/2007 before the 23rd _ _. _ , __ ..-..y ..Lvi1 _nd ._...,_ions Ju.d.g.. S!.?§l£i_n_,, antioinatorv I' J in r"'"-t -f Ci-"'"rr No.12Gi2GG7 r'g"i"t*r*d '*1 Hennur V it Station. Though the Court granted anticipatory bail it /'32.! with such conditions and consequently the bail stood automatically cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner fried Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 25393-25399/2007, 254o1go54se_,Qooo7 _n.«.1 25442-25417 1,/zoo? bewre the 13th Aae§iiene.:in[[sesr-sans Judge, Mayohaii, Bangalore or o All those petitions were dismis.s'ed__ by" Vcoiiit common order dated 26.05.2067;flhereupon; the petitioner filed Criminal Petition eéis.224t2;i2oe?i,'a2243/2007, 2245- 22?2/29{}'.7 "*0 ~"r*- "=i'.w-*etitien.s~.e'1.-2 tetai} befere the Rig}-1 Court for uWhen the High Court declined to_ he got the petitions dismissed as '25; 10.2007. It was thereafter that the petitioner "fi_led_ Petit.i_n Not, 2149-55/_.oo7, A"V52,I;2'0iV)7 to quash the proceedings in Crime Nos. 71- 74i/:2oo7,i *?ze.8%if/2007, 120/2007, 152/2007, 153/2007, ' 42/ 007 on the ground that the matter "vi disrmfe an p__._V__._. ....--_. ,._.- - d hone- police ought not to have "_J_ _.l V' __"r.e*j er a cases against him and his associates. The 'V V " petitions were dismissed by the High Court on /750! '-...--?"/ 31.16.; 67 in the complaint clearly constituted a cognizable offence justifying the registration of a case and investigation thereon.{;Against the order dated 31.10.2007 of the High Court, the. p?¢titis:ier . .
..le.. Special Lee. 7 st:
was iater withdrawn. It is thereafter thatfjvthe ':petition.er..,i.iied "
the present writ petition. According Vtoithe writ petition is not maintainable it is devoid: of inerit.
10) According to jviiléantained in the ebjectiqn filed on b*ehaif3~.of executing the, tieedsiizlj favour of the investors the petitioner did it not _._give apartments/sites to them. The petitioner "h_as. his business and property _ developments sexierai names deliberately to defraud the who 'bother NRis made the compiaint on 26.1 1.2006 V filed second': complaint against the petitioner on the same i¢§use._'jof action and in respect of the same incident. It is .i..]c:a1ta*~§V_g',iorica1Iy stated that Shri Chidambaram is the member of ~ V' _., 1...... 131.. n .. ' A "
Cl 1 1'lfl.Zii:I. _I'1 t u I. 1:: :1. Sfiuz ti""i afiu 316 ES 316$ According to the respondents, the FIRs produced as Annexures--X, Y, Z 85 M are the complaints of the siteowners of Elysium Township and it has no connection __FIRs . ejv ..
. , 4. _ __1..'.', .
'rug: ._ are the complaints lodged by the icrownfjv 'Fiat' i' for their individual grievances...=it.___is contended.»thjat:'thet;e is repetition of the complaints. It 'stated that..r_espondents 6, 7 85 8 are not members**«.._..':.\f . the 4, Flat Owners flannndafdnrn or-I4-I l--I§§IJ\.II-Q.'-I\JI1 all-\-I theirs'-'~.gr'3°*"a*V'es"v é*¥'.-'J A independent it the Crown Plaza Apartrnerltfisp 8 are site owners at Elysium that the petitioner crirninally e p--ssed "into _the_ of the respondents several put up by the owners of the site. The reispottdentsfandiother site owners purchased their sites for their residenvtial purpose using their small savings, but the .___""trespass, fraud, threat to life and damage to property. The V' _ Lsaggrieved individual site owners have lodged their complaints (M4 , ..:=--=--'*-"--
them by the petitioner and the rowdy eiements supporting him.
11) The 2nd respondent has filed a separate:
a.-1....vit _.l.r11i_11i11g a__:..a-ng. _r the illegal and of the pe 'tier: r. A" uzng to fir fir5€tnentsthe.VtApff'd V counter affidavit, the petitionerhas 'i'n_cJlulgedtV»in. the Mile working in different parts ofeelilnited 'lilrnirrates (UAE) by giving advertisement' in"jtl_1e~'_ne§.rsp~apers stating" that he will provide shes in Bangalore 'City L, K...*rrr.a W':-' - situatedignear and sold the sites to several NRIs staying purchasing the sites, the NR1s hsites.» In 2007, the petitioner got all those compound vralI,sh/--shecis'."fdeniolished and converted the area into a plain ' 'land thefintention of selling the very same sites to other "1\lR.nIs;" «.lUi'¢out :2 th trick played by the petitioner, _ flearlier purchasers came to know about the resale of their A C31! the petitioner and hence they lodged the complaints with Hennur Police Station. Their complaints were registered as Crime Nos.71-'74/ 2007 for offences punislial:)_le__'__j:ft:rid.er affidavit also refers to the various 4_iniseeiTaneo'u petitions filed by the petitioner the failure of the petitioner to conditions in all the cases. It is thefljnvrisdiction of Township there also he has indulged executing sale deeds in favour of 'providing sites to them. Two such cases were petitioner in Hoskote Police V I tl'i"t the NRIs who invested mane"
Vlthepi pt'_0ject}"of_ Crown Plaza International Apartment and Resorts i were cheated by the petitioner also lodged _ 'complaints the Hennur Police Station. Reference is made it came; Noc190/200'? 1-«_~.g_:e.__.«_1 on the basis of the TIA 'I_..'l.I..
____""C0t3:1piaint fii'd "Y 6 pt': Sofas mrougn In if Grn :1 Lu 1* Mr. _ jgYmogesh Rao and Crime No.24')/2007 registered on the basis nap;-an.-.¢.n J.
an £11 IICJ. U1. 1.11.71 HUIIH I.
-.= I E :-
I-
F' hoider Mr.Atu1 Rao. Reference is also made to crime No.42 / 2007 registered on the basis of the comp1aintTfi.l.ed by another NRI by name K.T.Yosua alleging bv thr-ea 'emu ___!;1A 11m A.C.M.M. Court, Mayo I-Ia1l.,_.Banga'Iore e,s¢:§~i;zi1n;i1 No.25338/2007. It is also statedfiizat mane the cases, the petitioner appeared 'iiefore 'irirreetigating Officer and seek and obtain. ariitio_ipator€5'_:V ignen fail to comply with the bail conditior1e?;,1_tvvtee';-neioifieaflyiiiafleged that the petitioner is abscéndiiigieiviaraeize 'available for investigation or interrogation, * Ilr SD ('3 I} 'S (3 1 II {-
SE
83..
('B i so (3 3"
(D B 3 D 3 '9- CD 5 a Va '-14 o'bj.eetion'ef'counjter affidavit and a ciose scrutiny of the _varioi'1s flocuinents produced by the petitioner and the i rrrespondents, we find that the petitioner has presented the ._j'fa'cte' "in a manner capable of creating confusion and Him vv 'aP'|V_G" 'V I. aI_- B afiasupa ~_ wim a pistoi. Charge sheet in iflfaefoeen. in athek 26 wrong impression that all the FIRs challenged 'n the '""it petition are based on the complaints made by the members of the Crown Plaza Flat Owners Association in respec't'*.of the disputes arising out of the Crown Plaza InternationaI.j'I_riote1 tie V meats I'-I» . A!"
':9 II -
1'?
2 1:, LI- -_ ' ._ _".,i d at O::1:
an :3: w "--..
('3:
61 documents produced by them' cieariy._show that of FIRs, namely, Annexure--X, _& based on complaints made by 'of_%>E1ysium Township by the ieamed But the averments in the wrvit__Vpetitiee_; assumption that all the FIRs based"'s.n._p made by the M213 who invested Vcfovifii. international Hotel and Resorts AV'V.theV'petiti,oner.,Athat the FIRs produced as Annexures-- X, Y, Z 65 of the very same complaints contained in the repsfevsentation submitted to the Chief Minister and hence :1 oy tn _ p r spondefits the i ' «--
2'7 13} There is also ne legal or factual basis fer the 85 V, repeated FIRs were filed in respect of the sa1nep':ot'fences and based on the same facts. The materials plaeedtecord show tha- t.-e ..ggrl.._ed persens ha_ve_ ..
complaints in respect of off 'fl'?E:S Cfitfiinitted 'agai:"1pst.,;eai*h of them and that they constitute independen't cause of action.
fin! 4} ..ven tnengh ef n1..y be members of Association, the sale was executed between
the petiitior1erAV.VVlla:ifd: complainant and not between = 'the Crown Plaza Flat Owners .._Asser;i;ation. Tfi'fi1Gfit3t""' trarr"-ec'en fms between me A"'.irndividual'corn'plainant and the petitioner and the offence of cheati:igv.a1i?i--3_ other offences mentioned in the B1123 were _ '.comrnitte"d; the petitioner or his staff against the individual lfivsubmitted the representation to the Chief Minister of ('J01 right to file criminal complaints against the petitioner cannot be denied to them. Similarly, the submission of - ajgeneral representation to the Chief Minister against the:.~il1"e_gai' aetspof the pet; 'nner, cannot nr 111 e t e in-,ividna_i'=;'nvester t'i°nni"".._ .._ - _.. V% v _ __ 'Va -,vV-v.. _v exerising right to me a :npiai_'r'fi:--: stash petitioner in the jurisdictional.'policestation, of offences committed by the 15} From 9.
submitted Association to the Chief be seen that the allegations nature without necessary particulars" each and specific acts against the sin; 1.':-11' rs '-V'Ir\n-I' 'in nnvud-A-:v\Anl 4-\¢n1uv ('1 nr¢\n-schema-.1 vuulnu-ran» '.1510 llhllalfii CLLILI. '1-[1 L 1,11» DUIILGHIUU Ullly CI. 55116161 Pl JUL LU]. AV':protectionof..:the_ NR1 investors from the petitioner. On the otru5r"tp1v;aii{'3t§iiacneimpugned FiRs filed in the jurisdictional ' 'policed contain the individual grievances and the i-u-mg'- ___.A1h:i_ h_-
'I.' ;, Cnmpiainants ii" of Anr_1exure-- R--13 report submitted by the Police /7301 GIAHV 29 forwarded by the Chief Minister . The Police Inspector found that the petitioner and his staff committed offences like criminal conspiracy, threat, trespass, criminal trtist L, against the com conciuded that the compiainants iareeat fjviitzterty'*to*V.go'tnptheiw jurisdictional police and to .»eie.dge iiindependent against Joseph Chacko (Petitionxeri:
16} mough the learned»cenn'sei"'rer'*.t.;e petitioner reded on the decisioniof T.Antony Vs. State of ,the said decision has no application -to case. The said decision applies only in a situation"' ewhere there are more than one FIR rgister dd"; r peet of the same incident gi"ing rise t' ene er denote cognizahlev offences. Even, the petitioner does not have a caseithat thesbasis of the representation submitted to the IC.hiefuuMinister and forwarded to the Police Inspector through flan Tsennfv (Tnmmigninnpr nf _.., .._.\.,.... V. -
slice rm 1!? t. as -egistere-:1 investigation was conducted thereon. Hence, any of the uhgstibsequent complaints filed by the individual investors ('NJ \._/ _ ;'I. cannot be dercriued as a second :uR if r spect of me allegations contained in the representation submitted to the Chief Minister. Moreover, as already pointed out earlier, the allegations in the representation submitted Minister tve.e gener 1 in ns....1..e seenlr-g gene.r9_':""' val.
the NH investors, whereas the aliegations"'in" the4'c0znpi.aii1ts'..., made" by the individual irivestors' ..v_reflect.'v:
grievances and contain the committed against each of them 'It is to be noted that me "*d""'dus.'. Cerf. 'A p l It FIRs producedflsésl were made by the site not by the members of Crown ':'():wners'vv*Assbciation which submitted the ' ..17}Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that soirie"--.loil.'thej--3 csrnplaints were made by the persons who ' signed tlieoprepresentation submitted to the Chief Minister and 112s filed en t e be-.s.s of -..uc.. cernplsints mus. be
-
.___""'treated as a second FIR in respect of the same incident or fletransaction. As already pointed out, merely because the Ciu 31 ..... . .. .. £11.. ' co uplainauts 11- d med a g*n'ral r'pr'sent't on 'ddressed to the Chief Minister they cannot be denied their legal right to file a complaint in the jurisdictional police station. IR} H' Ifiw G I-
1.'.
s ..1se to be noted he rm "*9 '' .-.e!s_''~¢f "'~"* .en"":r§r conducted by the Police Inspuectorlx fl pureuanta :1' the*-- representation submitted to the__ Chie£_l1\vIiniste'ur no FIR was regstered and no'vi4i'inirestigatio.n_divas; conducted under Section 156 of th.eV:l"Code Procedure. Even ' A'-+1..' + 4.1.. g 1.
e1viru1-:q's-3.1 -In cu 'rt _ 'E 415 A' In .1 'II-vs"! u 1 U4:
allegations rtlfiiiie ins"eators"""against the petitioner no FIR __o__1j on the basis of the representational' the"~otli.er hand, in the report submitted .. to individual complaints in the jurisdictional police'~Vstatie.n--:_ Vpiinivirespect of the particular offences allegedly _ 'c_ommitted:.against each one of them. x 9 1
19) Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point "out any instance of an individual complainant filing a second QM ______,_.'-$....---
. .
complant an respec. of the same shences or the sam ~ CD incident or the same transaction and a second FTR being filed on the basis of such second complaint. On othergjhand, a perusal of the impugned FIRs shows that they of different offen
4....-..........a..:....... ..
ixntiifiéfitfi/'u'u1xauuuu11s. Heufié, tug i': . _' T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala' not applicable in this case.
20) W. .1. 9.1% consttai . .._ to the he conduct of -the petitioneln objections/' counter affidavit thtticates that by resorting to the Inethod applications for anticipatory bail and femsingtts shyly with the bail conditions, the 'anyyeffective investigation into the complaints filed aaainst' .. attempt of the petitioner is to stall the investigation somehow or other and to escape from the _ ' a__'1I A A- _- A vIRs tte Wtthed no this Court, It W1 amount o travesty of
121) in the facts and circumstances stated above we are satisfied that there is no infringement of anyjhof the petitioner's fundamental rights including the:.~«~fiind__an:eiital right under A_rticl 21 of the Con tituti n of India, in 0
22) We also find force contention of the respondents that in view order dated 31.10.2007 passed by _ VA.i(§'eLi!;t'«.d_ismissing Criminal . etitien ..e.25?6~,l2"07v_.Vsnd'- eases ..led ..y the petitioner it is not open to the pefitioner..p;§. challenging the very same F1as._ mi"tizermaetiiltiated 31.10.2007, the High Court had cateigoncallp' the allegations made in the of a case and investigation thereon. The Court hadvihalsoii merely because there are civil disputes ' between "the petitioner and the complainants, a complaint .__""'q1iashed and In t tn complaint snou "investigated to find out the 0 truth or otherwise of the
--l tipetgusti. at 'n ('4: 'F I-In LI'-rvln ("J-n.II1n*§ 1'11 1 I \JUlIILKa JD stiil operating against the petitioner. Though the petitioner filed SLP in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court it was later withdrawn. In such circumste.aees,'__'_'iirzlthis ailegations made in the cornpiaints f;0ff1$,?.tIé."i1i'"£':."a"CGgI1'{§i. , 33 C at offence jutifying registration of a caseand on. The matter is concluded datedf31.10.2007 passed by the High Coiaff' ho. 2576 of 200? and conneettri it it Iain-I 1-Inuxrth lair'-éylnih 1-av-.<\'V:'!v\'I:'|'. dkififflffihv ('A111-f in Q1-nl-A AF 'LIar-u-av-no Lulu \-Luwvu U] I..:.:,\.- 111-} may ' Iv \/vu. u 1: cl. 85 othersvsashajaiie%r1;a1r.p8aauothers (AIR 1992 so. 604) the nnpugned cannot be quashed by this court in this writ H ~. reasons stated above, we hold that there is ' 'no merit"in.' the writ petition. Hence the writ petition is ' rii.._niissed= etihorr r is ent..1ed. to W1thdI'9.'.'.7 he ..mo1..nt dep-e...1t.,.d. ..y 'rffn this Co
28. 1.2008.
nkv/kms