Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(x) The allegations leveled against the petitioner do not constitute the ingredients of any of the offences alleged in the FIR or in the additional charge sheet and therefore, continuation of prosecution against the petitioner is illegal and a stark abuse of process of court.

16

4. Refuting the above submissions, the second respondent - CBI has filed detailed statement of objections, denying the allegations made in the petition and it is contended that the supplementary charge sheet has been filed by the second respondent / CBI in view of the further investigation undertaken. The previous charge sheets were filed for cheating the depositors and during the course of investigation, a larger conspiracy involving the petitioner came into light and in pursuance thereof, further investigation was conducted and a supplementary charge sheet was filed arraying the petitioner as accused No.25. It is further submitted that the FIR in RC.14(A)/2019 and the impugned FIR in RC.5(A)/2020 have been properly registered in accordance with law. The FIR in RC.5(A)/2020 was registered for the offences under the provisions of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and since the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases (CCH-4), Bengaluru, was the notified court, the FIR had to be submitted to the notified court i.e., CCH.21, as such, there is no illegality in the registration of the FIR in RC.5(A)/2020. Along with the written statement, the respondent No.2 has also produced the order sheets in W.P.No.56649/2018 and connected matters and has emphasized that the investigation into the alleged offences committed by the IMA entities were monitored by the Division Bench of this Court and prima facie material having been collected in proof of the accusations leveled against the petitioner, there is no reason to quash the proceedings as sought for by the petitioner.

(2) Whether the additional / supplementary charge sheet dated 15.10.2020 is bad in law as the same is the result of reinvestigation and not the further investigation as envisaged under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.?

(3) Whether the investigation and consequent submission of additional / supplementary charge sheet is vitiated due to violation of protection under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018)?

(4) Whether the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under section 197 Cr.P.C. and section 170 Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is proper and valid?

8. These averments clearly indicate that the petitioner came to be implicated in the alleged offences pursuant to the investigation conducted subsequent to 07.09.2019. Undeniably, the additional / supplementary charge sheet was filed on 15.10.2020 whereas in respect of the very same transaction, a separate FIR came to be registered against the petitioner in RC.No.5(A)/2020 on 01.02.2020 and the investigation therein was kept in progress even after the submission of the additional / supplementary charge sheet in RC.No.14(A)/2019 which is impermissible under law as it amounts to investigation based on second FIR in respect of the same transaction.

(iii) The impugned order dated 06.11.2020 in Spl.CC.No.1055/2019 passed by the CBI Spl. Court (CCH.4) (Annexure-'BC') taking cognizance of additional / supplementary charge sheet is quashed insofar as petitioner herein is concerned.

(iv) The additional / supplementary charge sheet in Spl.CC.No.1055/2019 (Annexure-'BB') is quashed insofar as petitioner herein is concerned.

(v) The FIR bearing No.RC0372020A005 dated 01.02.2020 registered by the second respondent against the petitioner herein, pending on the file of CBI.Spl. Court (CCH.4) (Anneuxre-'AV') is quashed.