Bombay High Court
M/S. Fairwinds Asset Managers Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 August, 2016
Author: Naresh H. Patil
Bench: Naresh H. Patil, Prakash D. Naik
1
cri-wp-779-16
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 779 OF 2016
M/s. Fairwinds Asset Managers Ltd.
(earlier known as Reliance Equity
Advisors India Ltd.) representing
M/s. Reliance Alternative Investments
Fund-Private Equity Scheme I (A Trust
registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882)
M/s. Fairwinds Asset Managers Ltd.
is represented through Ramesh Venkat,
Managing Partner, Adult Indian Inhabitant
Aged 51 years, having its registered office
address at 1105, Level 11, Tower -1, One
Indiabulls Centre, 841 Senapati Bapat Marg,
Elphinestone Road, Mumbai - 400 034. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
2. Additional Commissioner of Police
Economic Offences Wing, Criminal
Investigation Department, Mumbai Police,
Crime Branch Building, Office of
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai,
Opp. Crawford Market, Dr. D.N. Road,
Mumbai - 400 001. .. Respondents
Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Siddhesh Bhole, Mr. Ryan
Mendeo i/by Haresh Jagtiani & Associates for petitioner.
Mrs. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for respondents-State.
Mr. Abad Ponda a/w Mr. Ankit, Mr. Nikhil Koach i/by Croford Bayley &
Co. for interveners.
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:48 :::
2
cri-wp-779-16
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL &
PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : AUGUST 18, 2016.
PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 25, 2016
JUDGMENT [ Per Naresh H. Patil, J.] :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of parties.
2.
The petitioner prays for direction to register F.I.R. on the
complaint addressed by him to the Joint Commissioner of Police,
Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Mumbai, dated 30/4/2015.
3. By communication dated 21/1/2016, Mr. Arvind N.
Wadhankar, Sr. Inspector of Police, EOW, Unit-V, Mumbai informed the
petitioner that the complaint is of civil nature and they have closed the
enquiry.
4. In short, it is contended that petitioner is a Fund Manager
which manages the fund set up under a Trust called Reliance Alternative
Investments Fund - Private Equity Scheme I (RAIF). RAIF was
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
3
cri-wp-779-16
established in 2008 and since then had made various investments in
diversified industries. It is stated that RAIF comprises constituents like
Public Sector Banks viz. Bank of Baroda, Punjab National Bank, Indian
Overseas Bank, Andhra Bank and also Army Group Insurance and LIC of
India.
5. It is the petitioner's contention that Max Flex & Imaging
Systems Limited is an unlisted public limited company incorporated in the
year 2002 under the Companies Act, 1956. The Company is in the
business of, inter alia, manufacturing, contract manufacturing and
marketing of digital and offset printing consumables, including printing
surfaces, printing inks, offset printing chemicals, offset printing plates and
accessories. RAIF is also an investor and shareholder in the Company.
According to the petitioner, Hitesh Jobalia, Nimesh Shah and Rahul Desai
are the persons responsible for the dealings of the Company against whom,
amongst other, the registration of crime and investigation is prayed for. It
is stated that the Company is promoted and managed by Hitesh Jobalia as
its Managing Director and Nimesh Shah as its Executive Director and
Rahul Desai as its Vice President Finance and Accounts. Said Hitesh
Jobalia and Nimesh Shah are also the promoters of the Company. Said
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
4
cri-wp-779-16
Hitesh Jobalia along with his wife Mrs. Dipti Jobalia holds more than 53%
of the equity shares in the Company.
6. The petitioner's allegation is that the EOW failed to register
the FIR in respect of serious fraud committed by the above stated accused
persons with respect to an amount of Rs.136 crores invested by the
petitioner through Trust. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of
the fact that since last 8 to 9 months, the Investigating Agency did not
communicate the petitioner about the decision on the said complaint. The
petitioner has challenged the conclusion reached by the Investigating
Officer (Senior Inspector, EOW, Unit - V, Mumbai).
7. In the complaint, the complainant had referred to details of
transactions, annual report of the Company, financial status, the projected
revenue, profit margin etc. In Clause 4.31 the complainant alleged as
under :-
4.31. Later that evening, Mr. Hitesh Jobalia called one of us
i.e. Mr. Rahul Manek and asked him to come to the office of
the Company urgently. Mr. Rahul Manek accompanied by
Ms. Namrata Chotrani (as representatives of RAIF) went to
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
5
cri-wp-779-16
the office of the Company and entered Mr. Hitesh Jobalia's
cabin. There, Mr. Hitesh Jobalia broke down and admitted to
Mr. Rahul Manek and Ms. Namrata Chotrani that the
Company was in heavy losses and that he had been making
fraudulent entries in the books of accounts of the Company.
Mr. Rahul Manek and Ms. Namrata Chotrani were shocked at
the revelation as they had been receiving and relying upon
monthly financial reports since their initial investment in the
Company until August 2014 which reflected the sales and
profits of the Company, both of which had been shown
to have steady growth. Mr. Nimesh Shah was also privy to
some of the aforesaid. Attached hereto as Annexures 8, 11, 13
and 17 are copies of the reports received by us. Mr. Hitesh
Jobalia constantly repeated the fact that the Company was
actually suffering heavy losses and that the balance sheet of
the Company was false.
Clause 4.38 of the complaint reads as under :
4.38. Subsequently on 19 March 2015 Mr. Rubin Chheda
visited the registered office of the Company in an attempt to
procure additional information. There he met with Mr. Rahul
Desai who described the three schemes used by the Promoters
to inflate the sale and thereby falsify the accounts of the
Company and/or misappropriate the property of the Company
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
6
cri-wp-779-16
including RAIF's investments. Please find an outline of the
schemes below :-
I. Generating funds out of non-funded limits :
(i) The Company would generate a fake purchase bill /
order in the name of one of the following entities ("Purported
Traders"):
a. Spectrum Opto owned by Mr. Amessh Ghandhi
who is Mr. Hitesh Jobalia's close friend and employee of
the Company,
b. Singh Digital owned by the father of Mr.Jaspal
Singh, an employee of the Company,
c. Vision Infotech owned by Mr. Nishith Sheth,
cousin of Mr. Hitesh Jobalia,
d. Pacific Printers owned by Mr. Amit Chugh, an
employee of the Company,
e. Gurcharan Digital Meida owned by Mr. Nilesh
Thole, an ex employee of the Company,
f. Spectrum International owned by Mr. Girdhar
Menon, father of Mr. Prashant Menon, an employee of
the Company.
g. Silver Photostore owned by Mr. Pratik Turakhia
who is the nephew of Mr. Hitesh Jobalia.
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
7
cri-wp-779-16
(ii) The Company would then open a Letter of Credit in
favour of one of the Purported Traders against such purchase
bill / order.
(iii) The Purported Trader would discount the Letter of
Credit and arrange payment to the account of one of the other
Purported Traders.
(iv) Such other Purported Trader would then write a cheque
in favour the Company under guise of making a purchase
from the Company.
Annexed hereto as Annexure 21 are statements of the bank
accounts held by the Company with various banks for the
period from 1 September 2014 to 30 September 2014 showing
transactions with the Purported Traders. As a result of the
above, the revenue, profitability and current assets of the
Company were continuously inflated allowing for higher
drawing power which aided the Company for increasing the
funded and non-funded bank limits which was one of the
intents with which this exercise had been undertaken.
Annexed hereto as Annexure 22 is a summary of the credit
limits enjoyed by the Company with its various banks as on 16
September 2014. Further, we have been given to understand
that the accounts of the Purported Traders are operated by
Mr.Nimesh Shah.
II. Generating cash through fake purchases :
(i) The Company would purportedly purchase goods from
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
8
cri-wp-779-16
one of the following entities :
a. Amit & Co.
b. N N Mehta
c. Ameeko Marketing
(ii) The Company would issue cheques to the party from
whom it has purportedly purchased goods in terms of (i)
above,
(iii) This party would handover cash to the Promoters, who
would then misappropriate the funds of the Company.
III. Selling goods on a cash basis without showing any
account entries :
(i) The Company would purchase goods from its suppliers;
(ii) The goods would then be sold for cash, but would
remain as inventory in the books of the Company;
(iii) The cash would then be misappropriated by the
Promoters.
It appears that as a result of these three schemes, the inventory
and debtors of the Company were constantly inflated, thereby
remaining on the higher side. Thereafter, in the draft balance
sheet circulated to us on 5 December 2014, the falsely inflated
inventory and debtors of the Company appear to have been
discounted, which has resulted in the purported losses shown
by the Company in these financials.
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
9
cri-wp-779-16
In Clause 5.4 of the complaint, the complainant alleges that,
5.4 Annexed hereto as Annexure 26 is a copy of the ledger
account of Singh Digital (a Purported Trader) as maintained
by the Company, for the period from 1 April 2014 to 31 March
2015. We have, unfortunately, been unable to procure copies
of the ledger accounts maintained by the Company with any of
the other Purported Traders. However, it is noteworthy that
the quantum of business purported to have been done with
Singh Digital alone in the past year is approximately Rs.79
crores, which is a rather large amount. Of this, it is not
possible for us to ascertain how much business has been
legitimately carried out with Singh Digital and how much is to
create an inflation in revenues and expenditures in the manner
described in Scheme I set out paragraph 4.38. Mr.Jaspal
Singh, an employee of the Company, whose father purportedly
is the proprietor of Singh Digital, has informed Mr.Rubin
Chheda that he and his father are both unaware of the
transactions undertaken by Singh Digital and that the accounts
of Singh Digital are managed by Mr. Nimesh Shah.
In Clause 6 of the complaint, specific charges against the
promoters, Mr. Rahul Desai and others are also made.
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
10
cri-wp-779-16
8. The petition was filed on 18/2/2016. By an order dated
7/3/2016, this court passed following order :-
"P.C.
1. By communication dated 21/1/2016, Mr. Arvind N.
Wadhankar, Senior Inspector of Police, EOW Unit -V for
Mumbai communicated Mr.Rahul Manek/Mr. Rubin Chheda
that they have come to the conclusion that prima facie no
cognizable offence has been disclosed in the matter. According
to the Investigating Agency, the complaint discloses violation
of civil laws.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jagtiani, appearing for the
petitioner, submits a list of instances showing element of
criminality regarding which no investigation has been carried
out. It is submitted that complaint was filed before nine
months. The Investigating Officer acted contrary to the Apex
Court judgment in the matter of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of
Uttar Pradesh and ors. [(2014) 2 SCC 1]. The learned APP
submits that audit accounts for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-
2015 are not available and, therefore, it is not possible for the
Investigating Agency to inquire into the offence complained
of.
3. We direct the ACP, EOW Unit, Mumbai to look into the
matter and guide the Senior Police Inspector and Police
Inspector in the light of the arguments advanced today and the
list of instances submitted by the petitioner before this court.
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
11
cri-wp-779-16
The Investigating Agency shall file a short report in this
regard.
Stand over for two weeks i.e. 21/3/2016. To be listed
under the caption "fresh matter"."
9. Learned APP submitted two reports, dated 1/3/2016 and
11/4/2016 signed by Mr. Rajesh Shinde, Inspector of Police and Mr. D. V.
Chanvan, Sr. Inspector of Police, Unit - V, EOW, Mumbai.
10. As stated above, by communication dated 21/1/2016, the
Investigating Agency had closed the complaint/enquiry. Said
Communication reads as under :-
"To,
Mr. Rahul Manek/Mr. Rubin Chheda
Fairwinds Trustees Services Private Limited
1105, Level 11, Tower -1 One Indiabulls Centre,
841 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone Road,
Mumbai -13.
Subject :- Inquiry in PE-No.-80/2015
Sir,
We conducted Preliminary Enquiry registered vide
P.E.No. 80/15 on the basis of your application against Mr.
Hitesh Jobalia & other's of Max Flex Imaging System Limited
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
12
cri-wp-779-16
having its office at 102, Prime Plaza, J. V. Patel Compound,
Balasaheb Madhukar Marg, Elphistone (West), Mumbai - 400
013.
After conduction of enquiry, we have come to the
conclusion that prima facie no cognizable offence has been
disclosed in this matter. All the acts of commission and
omission on the part of non-complainant come under the
purview of civil laws. As such the complaint is civil in nature
we have closed the enquiry.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
ig (Arvind N. Wadhankar)
Sr. Inspector of Police, EOW, Unit -V,
Mumbai."
11. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Haresh Jagtiani submitted that in
view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari
Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and ors. [(2014) 2 SCC 1], in the
facts and considering the nature of allegations made by the complainant, it
was mandatory for the Investigating Agency to register an F.I.R. The
complainant had made out a case for commission of cognizable offence.
Hence, there was no option but to register an FIR forthwith. It was
submitted that the police took near about 9 months to communicate its
decision that the complaint is of civil nature and, therefore, it was closed.
The Investigating Agency avoided its duty in not registering the FIR and
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
13
cri-wp-779-16
instead has blamed the complainant and has treated the accused to have
been already acquitted in the case. Learned counsel submitted that the
reports filed by the Investigating Agency, more particularly report dated
11/4/2016 is not only unreasonable but it shocks the conscience. The
Investigating Agency embarked upon a thorough investigation,
appreciation of evidence for reaching a final conclusion wherein the
complainant is shown to be blameworthy whereas accused to be innocent.
The learned counsel submitted that the conduct of the Investigating Officer
needs to be minutely scrutinized while deciding the matter. The
Investigating Agency before registration of FIR has unnecessarily gone into
a sort of in-depth analysis and investigation of the case, which itself
supports the contention of the petitioner that a case was made out at least
for registration of FIR.
12. Learned counsel has briefly referred to copies of some of the
ledger account sheets placed on record, which, according to the counsel,
were forwarded by the accused to the complainant. In that connection,
learned counsel referred to page 434 and 444 of the paper book.
13. Learned APP submitted that the complaint was received by the
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
14
cri-wp-779-16
Investigating Agency on 12/5/2015. In the month of August and October,
2015, the complainant submitted relevant documents and thereafter the
preliminary inquiry was conducted by the respondent under the supervision
of ACP - 3, EOW, Unit, Mumbai. Learned APP submitted that the
documents referred during the course of the arguments are not authentic
one, they are notarized documents. It was submitted that Directors of the
petitioner-Company attended meetings of the other companies which were
allegedly run by the persons named in the complaint, which itself
demonstrate that the Directors of the petitioner - Company were aware of
the financial condition, profit-loss account, balance sheet position etc. It is
the complainant who caused delay in filing the complaint, according to the
learned APP. Learned APP referred to two reports submitted under the
signature of the Investigating Officer. In the view of the learned APP, no
case of commission of cognizable offence was made out after the
Investigating Agency verified the record, conducted enquiry by contacting
various persons. Learned APP further submitted that there is alternate
efficacious remedy for the petitioner. The petitioner has remedy under the
Code of Criminal Procedure and more efficacious remedy under the
Company law. There are other forums which can go into the details and
enquiry in case the petitioner approaches them. Learned APP submitted
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
15
cri-wp-779-16
that still the final audit reports of the Companies, which according to the
complainant are bogus, are not prepared and furnished to the Investigating
Agency and, therefore, they are not in a position to make any statement of
involvement of the persons named in the complaint.
14. During the course of hearing, learned counsel Mr. Abad
Ponda, appeared and submitted that he is instructed to appear for the
proposed accused/persons named in the complaint. The persons against
whom complaint was lodged are not party-respondents to this petition. But
on a request made by Mr. Ponda, we permitted the learned counsel to
address the court very briefly on limited legal issue concerning the
alternate remedies available to the petitioner-complainant.
15. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita
Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and ors. (Supra), in para 119,
observed as under :-
"119. Therefore, in view of various counterclaims
regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is
only that the information given to the police must disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation,
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
16
cri-wp-779-16
registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable
offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR
need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can
conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the
limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable
offence has been committed. But, if the information given
clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there
is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other
considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of
FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether
the information is genuine, whether the information is
credible, etc. These are the issues that have to be verified
during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration
of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information
given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found
to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the
complainant for filing a false FIR."
16. We have perused the following judgments :-
(a) Sunil Gangadhar Karve vs. State of Maharashtra and
ors. [(2014) 14 SCC 22].
(b) Aleque Padamsee and ors. vs. Union of India and ors.
[(2007) 6 SCC 171].
(c) Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [AIR 2008 SC 907].
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
17
cri-wp-779-16
17. The issue involved is as to whether the information given by
the complainant discloses commission of a cognizable offence. In case
such information discloses cognizable offence, the only outcome is
registration of FIR. This exercise is mandatory in nature and in case it is
found by the Investigating Agency, after investigation, that information
given by the complainant was false, there is an option to prosecute the
complainant for filing false FIR.
18. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the petitioner
has alternate remedy of resorting to provisions of Sections 154 (1), (3) and
156(3) of Cr. P. C. in case Investigating Agency refuses to register FIR.
Ordinarily a complainant would resort to alternate remedies which are, no
doubt, efficacious in nature but at the same time, as a principle, it cannot be
accepted that High Court is denuded of its powers of issuing appropriate
direction to register FIR under writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India merely because an alternate remedy is available. The
exercise of constitutional power conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India of issuing directions would depend on the facts of
each case and various attending features, gravity and seriousness of the
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
18
cri-wp-779-16
issue raised.
19. Though the respondent - Investigating Agency received the
complaint on 12/5/2015, a formal response to the same in the shape of a
decision taken by the Investigating Agency was received by the petitioner
through a communication made by the respondent on 21/1/2016. The
explanation provided for this delay of near about 9 months in taking the
decision was that the petitioner was not cooperating with the Investigating
Agency, which fact has been denied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The learned APP further submitted that in the month of August
and October, 2015, the complainant submitted some more documents and
thereafter preliminary inquiry started. From the reports submitted on
record and the submissions advanced, we find that the Investigating
Agency conducted the preliminary inquiry as investigation in the case,
which takes place after registration of FIR. It seems that the Investigating
Agency had gone into much details, analysis, examination of voluminous
documents, contacting various persons while conducting preliminary
inquiry. In the facts, we find that such is not the objective of permitting
the Investigating Agency to conduct a preliminary inquiry. In law, such a
preliminary inquiry was to be conducted within seven days as directed by
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
19
cri-wp-779-16
the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra).
20. Word "Preliminary" is defined in Advanced Law Lexicon
Dictionary, 3rd Edition, as under :-
"Preliminary. - Introductory; initiatory; preceding; temporary;
provisional - as preliminary examination, injunction, articles
of peace, etc."
The Investigating Agency need not embark upon a detailed
analytical investigation into the information or complaint received.
21. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 1937 of 2010 - Charu Kishor Mehta vs. State of
Maharashtra and anr. Decided on 26/11/2010. In paras 19 and 20, the
Division Bench observed as under :-
19. It is no doubt true that normal/general rule is to leave
the party to adopt remedy available under the Code, but this
Court is not powerless to issue an appropriate writ when police
have failed or avoided to use their powers available under the
Code to unearth serious economic crimes complained of, if
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
20
cri-wp-779-16
evasiveness to book the real culprits is apparent in the facts
and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the
petitioner had sent a typed and detailed communication
addressed to Shri Rakesh Maria I.P.S., heading Economic
Offences Wing, Crime branch C.I.D. in Police Commissioners
Compound Annex -1 Building, 2nd floor opp. Mahatma Phule
Market at Mumbai -1. In view of the accusations made in
details, in our view it was not a case of preliminary inquiry at
all considering the serious nature of the accusations. The case,
obviously, was not covered within the excepted category so as
to resort to preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR. The
police were duty bound to register the FIR and to proceed
with the investigation, in the facts and circumstances of the
case. Economic offences wing did not, except making few
diary entries, bother to inquire with the suspects. Dilly-
dallying tactics and evasiveness of police is apparent to us,
while we went through diary entries of EOW with the help of
Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Preliminary inquiry in this
case did not really move further except for stopping at mere
reference made to the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. Even
assuming that preliminary enquiry in this case has rightly been
resorted to, even then the police machinery was expected to
delve into details in respect of accusations made by the
complainant to make it a real, effective, meaningful
preliminary inquiry to summon & inquire with persons
acquainted with facts of the case. In our opinion, the
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
21
cri-wp-779-16
preliminary inquiry herein was to do mere paper compliance
so as to record that the nature of complaint is a civil dispute.
Notably, for the nature of allegations were serious such as
fabrication of record, criminal breach of trust, fraud, criminal
conspiracy etc., by no stretch of imagination all of them can be
passed off as a civil dispute.
20. It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of its
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
always issue appropriate directions at the instance of an
aggrieved person if it is convinced that the power of
investigation has been exercised by an Investigating Officer
mala fide. The malafide exercise of power need not be
malafide in fact. It can be a case of malafide in law. We are
conscious that this power is to be exercised in exceptional and
rarest of the rare cases where a clear case of abuse of power
and non-compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter
XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring the interference
of the High Court. It is true that in such cases, the High Court
cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be
conducted but can always insist for the observance of process
as provided for in the Code, i.e. recording of FIR< and to
register a criminal case and to conduct full and complete
investigation and to file the final report in competent criminal
court upon completion thereof."
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
22
cri-wp-779-16
22. We have carefully perused the report dated 11/4/2016. On
certain queries, the report dated 11/4/2016 itself supports the contention of
the petitioner that the Investigating Agency ought to have registered the
FIR and thereafter carried out the investigation. At the end of the report
the Investigating Officer had prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary
costs. Considering the record placed before us, the reports filed by the
respondent - Investigating Agency, we feel that the Investigating Agency
contested this petition based on documentary material as if a mini trial is
being conducted. We are not expressing any opinion on the stand taken
by the contesting parties on merits.
23. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the
respondent - Investigating Agency in not taking appropriate decision on
the complaint lodged by the petitioner diligently. A decision was taken
after near about 9 months of filing of the complaint. Delay in taking
decision was abnormal which ought to have been avoided. The petitioner
alleged that due to mismanagement of the companies affairs done by the
persons involved and named in the complaint, they suffered loss at least to
the tune of Rs.136 crores which capital was invested by the petitioner. It
was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that RAIF
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::
23
cri-wp-779-16
comprises constituents like Public Sector Banks, Army Group Insurance
and LIC of India. An element of public money is involved. Therefore, it
was submitted by the learned counsel that this is not a case wherein the
complainant be relegated to alternate remedy at this stage. We find
substance in the submissions of the learned counsel on this point.
24. In view of the allegations made and information provided by
the complainant in the complaint, the affidavits filed by the complainant
and the reports submitted by the respondent - Investigating Agency, we are
of the view that necessary directions are required to be issued to the
respondents for registration of FIR.
ORDER
(I) The impugned communication dated 21/1/2016 issued by Sr. Inspector of Police, EOW, Unit - V, Mumbai is quashed and set aside.
(II) We direct the respondent - Investigating Agency, Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Mumbai to register FIR on the subject complaint annexed at page 681 to the petition and commence investigation in accordance with law.
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 ::: 24cri-wp-779-16 (III) It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the information provided by the petitioner or allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint.
All issues on merits are kept open.
(IV) It is expected that the Investigating Agency would complete the investigation at the earliest and file appropriate report consequent to the completion of investigation. The investigation shall be conducted by some other officer than the one who conducted preliminary investigation and issued communication dated 21/1/2016. The investigation shall be supervised by a senior officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police.
24. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:49 :::