Karnataka High Court
M/S Megacity (Bangalore) vs Serious Fraud Investigation Officer on 20 November, 2012
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
CRL.P.No.3998/2012
BETWEEN:
1. M/S MEGACITY (BANGALORE)
DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS LTD.,
120, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH
ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING
DIRECTOR, Sri C.P.YOGESHWARA
2. SH.C.P.YOGESHWARA
S/O SH.PUTTAMADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
MEGACITY (BANGALORE)
DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS
LIMITED, 464, 1ST 'G' CROSS,
2ND PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
3. SH. C.P.GANGADHARESHWARA
S/O SH. PUTTAMADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR OF
MEGACITY (BANGALORE)
DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS
2
LIMITED, No.367, 1ST E CROSS,
2ND PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 085.. .. PETITIONERS
(By Sri TOMY SEBASTIAN, SR.COUNSEL)
AND:
SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION
OFFICER, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE
AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
2ND FLOOR, PARYAVARAN BHAWAN,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 003.
REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR. ..RESPONDENT
(By Sri B.P.PUTTASIDDAIAH, CGC)
CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST
THEM IN C.C.No.30/12 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL COURT
FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE.
This petition coming on for admission, this day, the court
made the following;
ORDER
In this petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.30/2012 pending on the file of Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore.
2. First petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act. Second petitioner is the Managing 3 Director and third petitioner is the whole time Director of first petitioner company. Respondent filed C.C.No.30/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 220(1) and 162 of the Companies Act. It is seen from the record that C.C.No.10/2012 is filed against petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 220(1) of the Companies Act for the year 2009-2010, C.C.No.12/2012 is filed for the year 2006-2007 and C.C.No.17/2012 is filed for the year 2008-2009. Therefore two proceedings for the same offence cannot be initiated against the petitioners. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.30/2012 is liable to be quashed.
3. Sri Puttasiddaiah, learned counsel for respondent submits that in C.C.No.30/2012 the offence relating to non-calling of the general body meeting is also involved and therefore the proceedings cannot be quashed. It is brought to my notice that in C.C.No.11/2012, 14/2012 and 15/2012 proceedings are initiated 4 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 162 of the Companies Act. Again for this offence two proceedings against the petitioners cannot be continued. Petitioners shall not be subject to face two cases for the same offences either under Section 162 or under Section 220(1) of the Companies Act. This approach of the respondents in initiating parallel proceedings against the petitioners is opposed to the principle of double jeopardy. For the reasons stated above, the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.30/2012 pending on the file of the Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore are hereby quashed. However, the proceedings in C.C.No.10/2012, 12/2012 and 17/2012 shall be proceeded in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
DKB