Telangana High Court
K. Pratap Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. By Its ... on 23 June, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Writ Petition Nos.4061 and 8656 of 2009
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is intrinsically inter connected, they are taken up and heard together and being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.4061 of 2009, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:
".......to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Official Respondents in taking action against the 10th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being in gross violation of the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the authorities to take immediate action against the 10th Respondent for the violation of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and other financial irregularities including laundering of money and evasion of taxes and pass such other order or orders.....".
3. W.P.No.8656 of 2009, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:
".......to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the report of the 3rd respondent dated 27.11.2008 bearing No.06/SBCZHYD/2008 and that of the 4th respondent dated 11.06.2008 bearing No.58/SB/FS/CYB/2008 as being without jurisdiction arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of constitution of India and principles of natural justice and consequently restrain the official respondents from initiating any action pursuant to the said reports in the interest of justice and pass such other or orders.....".2
4. The petitioners in W.P.No.4061 of 2009 are the respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.8656 of 2009. The respondent No.1 in W.P.No.4061 of 2009 is respondent No.1 in W.P.No.8656 of 2009. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 and 9 in W.P.No.4061 of 2009 are respondent Nos.2 to 5 in W.P.No.8656 of 2009. The respondent No.10 in W.P.No.4061 of 2009 is petitioner in W.P.No.8656 of 2009. Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 8 in W.P.No.4061 of 2009 are not parties in W.P.No.8656 of 2009. Hereinafter, the parties will be referred as they were arrayed in W.P.No.4061 of 2009.
5. W.P.No.4061 of 2009: It is the case of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 that they are well-acquainted with respondent No.10 and in view of the differences cropped up between themselves and respondent No.10, they have lodged a complaint against the respondent No.10 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.42/2008 on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, for the offence under Sections 420, 507 and 506 IPC and it is pending for investigation. It is the case of the petitioners that there are financial transactions between the petitioners and respondent No.10 and that they have entered into agreement of sale with respondent No.10 to purchase the land and when the same was not materialized, the respondent No.10 has filed a false case in Crime No.221/2008 on the file of 3 Banjara Hills Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 507 and 506 IPC, against the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioners that respondent No.10 is a Foreign National visiting India on a Tourist VISA. The respondent No.10 in violation of rules and regulations, got himself registered at FRO, Hyderabad vide SB No.20312873 and RP No.SB/F/1/106/RF/2003 dated 24.02.2003 and staying in India. For violations of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and also committing financial irregularities including indulging in money laundering transactions and evasion of taxes payable to the State, the petitioners have submitted a detailed complaint against the respondent No.10 seeking to conduct enquiry against him. Acting on the complaint submitted by the petitioners, an enquiry was initiated against the respondent No.10 vide Memo No.8715/Passports/B1/2008-1 dated 17.03.2008 issued by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.7 had submitted a report dated 11.06.2008 against the respondent No.10. It is the case of the petitioners that they have addressed a letter to the respondent No.1 to inform the status of the complaint submitted by them, for which, the respondent No.1 had issued a reply vide letter No.30142/Passports.B1/2008-2 dated 31.12.2008 enclosing the copy of enquiry report dated 27.11.2008 submitted 4 by the respondent No.6 to the respondent No.5 and in the said letter, it was also stated that the enquiry report was sent to the respondent No.9, who is the appropriate authority for taking further action in the matter. It is the further case of the petitioners that even though the respondent Nos.7 and 6 vide proceedings No.58/SB/FS/CYB/2008 dated 11.06.2008 and proceedings No.06/SB-CZ-HYD/2008 dated 27.11.2008, respectively, have submitted their reports, the respondent No.9 is not taking any action and therefore, the petitioners prayed this Court to direct the respondent No.9 to take appropriate action against the respondent No.10.
6. W.P.No.8656 of 2009: The respondent No.10 in W.P.No.4061 of 2009 has filed W.P.No.8656 of 2009. The case of the respondent No.10 is that he is the shareholder and Director of JVP Soft Private Limited, having registered office at Unit No.5, JVP Towers, Software Units Layout, Info City, Madhapur, Hyderabad and he is also the shareholder and Director of EIQ Networks Limited, having its office at Unit No.5, Software Units Layout, Infocity, Madhapur, Hyderabad. It is the further case of the respondent No.10 that he acquired the citizenship of United States much before the said companies being incorporated. When the petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.4061 of 2009 played fraud in 5 the business transactions with him, he was constrained to lodge a complaint against the petitioner No.1 and the police after conducting preliminary enquiry, registered a case in Crime No.221/2008 on the file of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 420, 507 and 506 IPC. The contention of the respondent No.10 is that the petitioner No.1 as a counterblast and to get over from the criminal charges, has developed vengeance against the respondent No.10 and to seek revenge against the respondent No.10, has submitted false complaint to the official respondents. It is the further case of the respondent No.10 that the official respondents without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice to him has called for a report and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 in turn without following procedure contemplated under Code of Criminal Procedure, have submitted impugned proceedings dated 27.11.2008 and 11.06.2008, respectively.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.4061 of 2009/respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.8656 of 2009, has submitted that pursuant to the complaint submitted by the petitioners, an enquiry was initiated against the respondent No.10 vide Memo No.8715/Passports/B1/2008-1 dated 17.03.2008 issued by the respondent No.1. Thereafter, the 6 respondent No.7 and 6 vide proceedings No.58/SB/FS/CYB/2008 dated 11.06.2008 and proceedings No.06/SB-CZ-HYD/2008 dated 27.11.2008, respectively, have submitted their reports. Inspite of the same, respondents are not taking any action on the serious irregularities committed by the respondent No.10. Therefore, the petitioners pray this Court to direct the authorities concerned to take appropriate action against the respondent No.10.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.10 in W.P.No.4061 of 2009/petitioner in W.P.No.8656 of 2009 has vehemently argued that the respondent No.6-Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Hyderabad City and the respondent No.7-Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, are not having any statutory powers to conduct enquiry, that too behind the back of the respondent No.10. It is contended that the Government without examining in detail and without applying its mind adverting to the provisions of Cr.P.C, has simply forwarded the complaint of the petitioners to conduct enquiry. Basing on the directions issued by the Government, reports have been submitted by the respondent Nos.6 and 7, stating them as enquiry reports. It is further contended that the alleged reports submitted by the respondent Nos.6 and 7 are in 7 gross violation of principles of natural justice and as they failed to issue notice before filing the reports. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 do not have any statutory enforceable right. The alleged reports submitted by the respondent Nos.6 and 7 are biased and not inconformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C and ultimately prayed to set aside the alleged reports.
9. After hearing the rival submissions of respective counsel, this Court is of the view that while acting on the representation submitted by the petitioners, the official respondents have not given any opportunity to the respondent No.10 nor the alleged reports dated 27.11.2008 and 11.06.2008 submitted by the respondent Nos.6 and 7 respectively, were served to the respondent No.10. It is well settled law that before conducting any enquiry or investigation, the Investigating Officer has to strictly follow the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly, in this case, the respondent Nos.6 and 7 while submitting alleged reports have not obtained any permission from the concerned Magistrate, which is basis for investigation and therefore, they are not enforceable in law. The alleged reports submitted by the respondent Nos.6 and 7 causes great hardship to the respondent No.10, who claims to be Non- Resident Indian, which will have ramifications over his life. 8
10. In view of the above circumstances, this Court deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners in both the writ petitions to take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law for redressal of their grievances.
11. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 23-06-2023 vsl/scs