Karnataka High Court
Shri C P Yogeshwara vs Sfio (Serious Fraud Investigation ... on 12 June, 2015
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A. N. Venugopala Gowda
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A. N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.129 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI C P YOGESHWARA
S/O PUTTAMADEGOWDA
AGED 49 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
MEGACITY(BANGALORE) DEVELOPERS &
BUILDERS LTD.,
NO.464, 1ST 'G' CROSS
2ND PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE-560085
2. MS. MANJU KUMAR
W/O SHRI C P YOGESHWARA
AGED 43 YEARS
DIRECTOR
MEGACITY(BANGALORE)DEVELOPERS &
BUILDERS LTD.,
NO.143, 5TH MAIN, BSK 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE-560085
3. SHRI P MAHADEVAIAH
S/O PUTTAMADEGOWDA
AGED 59 YEARS
DIRECTOR
MEGACITY(BANGALORE) DEVELOPERS &
BUILDERS LTD
NO.143, 5TH MAIN, BSK 3RD STAGE
-2-
BANGALORE-560085
4. SHRI C P GANGADHARESHWARA
S/O PUTTAMADEGOWDA
AGED 47 YEARS
WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR
MEGACITY(BANGALORE) DEVELOPERS &
BUILDERS LTD.,
NO.367, 1ST 'E' CROSS
2ND PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE-560085
5. SHRI RAMESH H R
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
DIRECTOR
MEGACITY(BANGALORE) DEVELOPERS &
BUILDERS LTD.,
NO.435, I STAGE THAT 'G' CROSS
6TH BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE-560085
6. MR M SAMBASHIV RAO
NO.35, III FLOOR
BALAJI SILK COMPLEX
ANNADANAPPA LANE, AVENUE ROAD
BANGALORE-560002
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.KIRAN S. JAVALI & CHANDRASHWKARA K, ADVs.)
AND:
SFIO (SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE)
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
II FLOOR, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN
CGO COMPLEX
NEW DELHI-110006
... RESPONDENT
-3-
(BY SRI.B.P.PUTTASIDDAIAH, CGSC.,)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 23.02.2012 IN C.C.NO.6417/2012 AND
QUASH THE COMPLAINT AS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE
THE IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P. IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, an accused in the case pending before the Court below, being aggrieved by the action of the learned Magistrate, in taking cognizance and issuing the process for the offences punishable under Sections 403 and 409 of IPC, filed this petition seeking quashing of the said order and to hold the complaint as not maintainable.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner seeks time.
3. Perused the petition and annexed documents.
-4-
4. Since the impugned order can be assailed in a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C., as has been held by the case of Urmila Devi Vs. Yaduvir Singh, (2013) 15 SCC 624, this petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to avail the said statutory remedy.
All contentions raised in this petition are left open. The time taken in prosecution of this petition from 06.01.2014 till date shall stand excluded, if the revision Court is approached for relief, on or before 30.06.2015.
Certified copies produced along with this petition be returned to the learned advocate for the petitioner. -5-
Interim order passed in this petition shall operate till the date of filing of revision petition or 30.06.2015, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH