Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rohit Rabindranath vs Cascade Energy Pte Ltd. on 27 September, 2018
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1227-1230 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) Nos. 8311-8314 OF 2018)
(D. No. 33798/2018)
ROHIT RABINDRANATH APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KABIR SHIRAJ & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
The facts which are needed to be mentioned for the disposal of these appeals are that respondent No. 1, namely, Kabir Shiraj, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking directions against the Additional Director, Hyderabad (In-charge of Chennai Serious Fraud Investigation Office) as well as the Senior Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Government of Signature Not Verified India, Chennai, to investigate under Section 210(2) Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date: 2018.10.03 11:37:03 IST Reason: of the Companies Act, 1956 his complaint dated 5.10.2017 for the alleged offences committed by the 2 appellant herein. The appellant was not made party in those proceedings. After hearing respondent No. 1 (applicant in the said petition under Section 482 CrPC) as well as the Additional Director and the Senior Assistant Director, as mentioned above, the High Court passed the Order dated 7.02.2018 directing that a copy of the complaint be given to the said respondents in those proceedings and further directing that those respondents shall investigate into the complaint in accordance with law laid down under Section 210(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and take appropriate decision. It is a brief three paragraph order which is reproduced below:
"1. The prayer sought for in the present petition is to direct the respondent 1 & 2 to investigate under Section 210(2) of the Companies Act on the petitioner's complaint dated 05.10.2017 for the offences committed by the above Accused and to take necessary action.
2. Mr. D.Simon learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the authority to consider the petitioner's complaint is the respondents 1 & 2.
3. Hence the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint to the Respondents 1 & 2. On receipt of such an application, the Respondents 1 & 2 shall investigate into the complaint in accordance with law laid under the provision of Section 210(2) of the Companies Act and take appropriate decision. Such an exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible."3
After gaining knowledge of this order, the appellant herein approached the High Court by way of criminal miscellaneous petition for recall of this Order. This application has been dismissed by the High Court vide Order dated 3.09.2018. A perusal of this order would show that the High Court has expressed its helplessness in going into the application of the appellant herein having regard to the provisions of Section 362 CrPC which divest the jurisdiction of the criminal court to review or recall such order. Both these orders are challenged in the present appeals.
Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, have argued that the impugned orders have been passed at the back of the appellant and without affording any opportunity to the appellant. They have submitted that such a petition under Section 482 CrPC was not even maintainable.
Though learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 refuted the aforesaid arguments of the appellant on merits, fact remains that the appellant was not made party in those proceedings and the impugned order which was prejudicial to the interest of the appellant has been passed without affording any opportunity to him. The impugned orders are, therefore, liable to be set aside on this ground 4 alone.
We may clarify that this Court has not gone into the merits of the respective contentions, namely, whether the petition filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable or the order of the High Court on merits is correct or not.
Again, we reiterate that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the High Court shall decide the said petition on its own merits.
We accordingly set aside the impugned orders and remit the case back to the High Court. The appellant stands impleaded in those proceedings. The High Court shall endeavour to pass the final order on the said petition of respondent No. 1 herein within a period of two months from today.
…...…................J. (A.K. SIKRI) …...…................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 5 ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7877/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-09-2018 in CRLOP No. 11819/2018 03-09-2018 in CRLMP No. 6238/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature At Madras) ROHIT RABINDRANATH Petitioner(s) VERSUS CASCADE ENERGY PVT. LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.134431/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES and IA No.134558/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS) WITH Diary No(s). 33798/2018 (II-C) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.131638/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.131643/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.131633/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP and IA No.131641/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES) Date : 27-09-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Gowtham Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Garima Jain, Adv.
Mr. Athibhan Vijay, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Siddhanth Kohli, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Prabhakaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.A. Gouthaman, Adv. Mr. Karthikeyan Sekar, Adv. Ms. T. Archana, AOR Mr. Zafar I. Gani, Adv.
Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.6
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 7877 of 2018:
We do not find it to be a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to mention that the High Court has by the impugned order dismissed the quashing petition filed by the petitioner herein. The case is still under investigation which shall be carried on in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court. We may make it clear that the High Court has examined the matter only in the context of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Diary No(s). 33798/2018:
Permission to file the Special Leave petition is granted. Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeals stand disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA) (RAJINDER KAUR)
AR-CUM-PS BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)