Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Stepping Stone Private Limited vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 December, 2021
(1 of 9) [CRLMP-5867/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5867/2020
M/s. Stepping Stone Private Limited Shahjhanpur Tehsil
Neemrana District Alwar Rajasthan Through Its Authorized
Representative Sh. Vijay Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through PP
2. Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, A Wing, Shastri
Bhawan Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110001
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP
Mr. Anand Sharma
Mr. Sandeep Sharma
Mr. Bhrigu Sharma
Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment RESERVED ON 22nd November, 2021 PRONOUNCED ON 15th December, 2021
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present order shall dispose of application (Nos.2/21, 1/21, 3/21, 4/21, 5/21, 6/21, 7/21, 8/21, 9/21, 10/21) moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by various parties as well as application (Nos.11/21) moved by the petitioner and the misc. petition itself.
3. A misc. petition was preferred by the complainant stating therein that criminal complaint was filed by the petitioner- company against the named accused persons before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Behror Alwar under Section 156(3) (Downloaded on 20/12/2021 at 09:35:23 PM) (2 of 9) [CRLMP-5867/2020] Cr.P.C. The Court concerned forwarded the complaint for investigation to Police Station Shahjanpur District Bhiwadi and an FIR was registered bearing No.213/2020 for offence under Section 420 IPC. It is stated that petitioner moved an application before the Investigating Officer pointing out that the accused persons had generated funds through forgery and criminal offences and the said amount was invested in purchasing shares of several companies with intent to get away with the money. The Investigating Officer on the basis of such request sent the letter on 12.11.2020 to the Central Depository Services Limited and another letter on 12.11.2020 to National Security Depository Limited with request not to transfer the shares detailed and tabled therein. The entire requisite material mentioning the details of the shares and intended transferring of the shares was given out to the Investigating Officer, however, the Investigating Officer did not arrest the accused and petitioner submitted representation to the higher authorities but instead of arresting, the police are intending to close the case. It was stated at the time of argument by the petitioner that the SHO has withdrawn his letter dated 12.11.2020 and the accused are likely to sell off the entire shares and equities.
4. This court vide order dated 17.12.2020 passed following order:-
"Learned counsel submits that the SHO had sent a letter on 12.11.2020 giving out details of the shares and equities which were restrained from being sold or put to mortgage. However, learned counsel submits that the investigation is being hampered and managed. The SHO has withdrawn the letter dated 12.11.2020 and the accused are likely to sell off entire shares and equities.
Let the SHO remain present on the next date and give affidavit as to why he has withdrawn the letter (Downloaded on 20/12/2021 at 09:35:23 PM) (3 of 9) [CRLMP-5867/2020] dated 12.11.2020. In the meanwhile, the Superintendent of Police is directed to issue a letter restraining from releasing of shares and equities as mentioned in the letter dated 12.11.2020.
A copy of this order be also sent by the petitioner to the Central Depository Services of India.
List this case again on 13.01.2021. It is made clear that, if the Investigating Officer is not present on the next date, the Superintendent of Police shall be free to take action against him."
5. After the said order was passed, the series of applications have been filed for impleadment and passing of orders and directions to the Investigating Agency and to the Central Depository Services Limited to unfreeze the shares which the concerned applicants have purchased. Details of the shares which the concerned applicants have purchased have been mentioned in each and every application and they have requested for being impleaded as party to the present criminal misc. petition. It is stated that in the original FIR, there was no such fact mentioned and the applicants who have purchased their shares have not been given any opportunity of hearing and the shares have been freezed. It is stated that the shares purchased by them ought not be freezed. It is stated that they are bona fide purchasers from BSE and NSE and the shares were purchased through their respective brokers. The broker has informed them about the said freezing of shares, following which the applicants have moved applications.
6. Faced with the said situation, the petitioner has moved an application and has also placed on record the document to show that the accused Anil Hira Lal Shah and Atul Hira Lal Shah known as Barter Brothers have been barred and a circular has been issued by the Investigation Department of National Stock Exchange earlier on 07.07.2008 mentioning that the applicants (Downloaded on 20/12/2021 at 09:35:23 PM) (4 of 9) [CRLMP-5867/2020] have undertaken voluntary bar from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in security market. The case confirming Barter Brothers involvement in Mehul Choksi Fraud and Hawala Transactions has also been pointed out. The petitioner has therefore also moved an application to transfer the investigation to a specialized agency stating that the shares which have been purchased by the respective applicants are those which have been identified by the Investigating Officer and the accused named in the FIR involved in parking black money and in other illegal activities relating to share market and therefore, as per the Companies Act, 2013 investigation be transferred to the Serious Fraud Investigation Agency known as Serious Fraud Investigation Office as established under Section 211 of the Companies Act, 2013. It is stated that there are several companies which are run by Anil Shah and Atul Shah who are named in the FIR and investigation of these companies and all other companies which are sister concerns of each other or all the other companies wherein the accused named in the FIR are Directors can be found and the truth can be unfolded.
7. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office being under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Union of India, a notice was issued to the Union of India to submit its reply. The Union of India has submitted its reply and stated that the petitioner has tried to enlarge the scope of the misc. petition and it is stated that the Government of India has set up a committee under the Chairmanship of former Cabinet Secretary Naresh Chandra known as Naresh Chandra Committee for setting up of a Corporate Serious Fraud Office.
(Downloaded on 20/12/2021 at 09:35:23 PM)
(5 of 9) [CRLMP-5867/2020]
8. Learned counsel submits that the Central Government vide resolution dated 02.07.2003 constituted this organization and a charter of Serious Fraud Investigation Office was issued on 21.08.2003 stating responsibility and functions of SFIO including but not limited to the following:-
"a) The SFIO is expected to be a multi-disciplinary organisation consisting of experts in the field of accountancy, forensic auditing, law, information technology, investigation, company law, capital market and taxation for detecting and prosecuting or recommending for prosecution white collar crimes/ frauds.
b) The SFIO will normally take up for investigation only such cases, which are characterized by -
I) complexity and having inter-departmental and multidisciplinary ramifications; II) Substantial involvement of public interest to be judged by size, either in terms of monetary III) the possibility of investigation leading to or contributing towards a clear improvement in systems, laws or procedures.
c) The SFIO shall investigate serious cases of fraud received from Department of Company Affairs. SFIO may also take up cases on its own, subject to para (d) below.
The SFIO would make investigations under the provisions of the Companies Act and would also forward the investigated reports on violations of the provisions of other acts to the concerned agencies for prosecution/appropriate action. d) Whether or not an investigation should be taken up by the SFIO would be decided by the Director, SFIO who will be expected to record the reasons in writing. These decisions will be further subject to review by a co-ordination committee."
9. It was further stated that as per Companies Act, 2013 SFIO has been established vide notification dated 21.07.2015 and it is stated that investigation into the affairs of a company is assigned to SFIO where Government is of the opinion that:-
"(a) on receipt of a report of the Registrar or inspector under Section 208 of the Companies Act, 2013;(Downloaded on 20/12/2021 at 09:35:23 PM)
(6 of 9) [CRLMP-5867/2020]
(b) on intimation of a special resolution passed by a company that its affairs are required to be investigated;
(c) in the public interest; or
(d) on request from any department of the Central Government or a State Government."
10. Learned counsel submits that if complaint is submitted to the Central Government, they would look into it and take a decision for transferring it to SFIO or not.
11. Since an affidavit was asked from the concerned SHO as to why he has withdrawn the letter dated 12.11.2020, in compliance thereof, the ASI has filed its affidavit and simply stated that because the complainant did not submit any link or details of accused persons after submitting the details of accounts of the shares and equities, the shares and equities were unfreezed vide letter dated 20.11.2020.
12. This court finds that as the explanation is wholly dis- satisfactory and Investigating Officer did not mention of having taken any steps to investigate further apart from unfreezing the shares, the investigation appears to be very patchy and it appears that the Investigating Officer does not have any knowledge in relation to the commercial frauds being done. It is also noticed that the SHO who had directed to freeze the shares was not present during the period from 11.11.2020 to 19.11.2020 and charge was with another ASI Hanuman Prasad and on 20.11.2020 the charge was with some another ASI Sunil Kumar who have written the letter for unfreezing the shares.
13. The applicants who have moved applications for impleadment were heard. However, it is a settled law that such persons cannot be made a party in misc. petition where the complainant seeks invoking of inherent powers of this court for (Downloaded on 20/12/2021 at 09:35:23 PM) (7 of 9) [CRLMP-5867/2020] directing firm investigation and for seeking supervision of a proper investigation in a case relating to fraud and cheating. The applicants although may not be necessary party but they have a right to be heard and recognizing their locus standi the counsels have been heard.
14. In the case of Madhu Limaye Versus The State of Maharashtra reported in 1977 (4) SCC 551 and in the case of Simranjit Singh Mann Versus Union of India (UOI) & Others reported in 1992 (4) SCC 653, the principle has been recognized that even if a person may not be directly connected in a criminal case and any order passed in a criminal case affects his rights, he has a liberty to move appropriate applications for questioning the legality and validity or correctness of the order which has affected his rights.
15. Apparently, it is a matter which requires thorough investigation as the allegations in the complaint and subsequent action shows prima facie a notorious method of doing away with money obtained by proceeds of crime. If shares are purchased by money acquired through proceeds of crime, it is a serious offence.
16. It is also noticed that upon unfreezing and subsequent freezing by this court, between the two dates, the applicants have purchased these shares. Their involvement may be or may not be there in the proceeds of crime but all this is a matter of investigation in relation to such investigation, no opportunity of hearing is required at this stage. The provisions of Companies Act, 2013 were amended by adding Section 211 with the sole purpose and aim to unravel such frauds. Once it comes into the knowledge of the Investigating Agency, they must act with utmost vigilance and due caution in care.
(Downloaded on 20/12/2021 at 09:35:23 PM)
(8 of 9) [CRLMP-5867/2020]
17. Keeping the said principle in mind, this court finds that essentially all the applicants who have been named above are those who have purchased share/shares from BSE and NSE relating to the companies which have been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint to the Investigating Officer. The shares were purchased earlier they are liable to be unfreezed. However, if the same were purchased in between and if it is found that such shares were originally purchased by way of proceeds of crime, they would be liable to be confiscated. In the event, therefore, it would be all the more necessary that the present shareholders namely the applicants are not allowed to further sell off the shares till the decision is taken after thorough investigation by the specialized agency. An alternate mode of securing the said shares can also be one method which may be adopted by the concerned specialized agency.
18. Be that as it may, it would be too pre-mature for this court to draw conclusions with regard to the aforesaid aspects. However, as pointed out earlier in the foregoing parts, it would be in the interest of justice that the investigation relating to FIR and subsequent complaint of using the proceeds of fraud committed in buying shares, be conducted by SFIO in the matter.
19. The petitioner as well as the applicants before this court can always submit their stand before the concerned SFIO who shall look into the entire case and reach to its own independent conclusion. If it is found that the shares as purchased by the applicants are in no manner connected, the SFIO shall be free to unfreeze the shares. However, if he reaches to the conclusion otherwise that money is involved, he shall take all steps to prevent loss to the Government and to the petitioner-company (Downloaded on 20/12/2021 at 09:35:23 PM) (9 of 9) [CRLMP-5867/2020] who claims of having been subjected to fraud. The investigation in FIR No.213/2020 registered at Police Station Shahjanpur District Bhiwadi is, therefore, transferred to the SFIO. The Investigation Officer in FIR No.213/2020 shall handover all details as required to the SFIO.
20. It is accordingly directed that the petitioner-company would be free to submit all details which it possesses and also assist the investigation. The applicants (herein) shall also be free to submit their stand before the SFIO. The SFIO shall be empowered to take all the steps accordingly. It is made clear that the investigation shall be done as expeditiously as possible.
21. The interim order passed by the court shall continue to operate till final decision is taken by the SFIO. The SFIO shall be free to take possession of all the shares if it ultimately reaches to the conclusion that the same are purchased and subsequently sold as part of proceeds of crime.
22. The criminal misc. petition is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Karan/ (Downloaded on 20/12/2021 at 09:35:23 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)