2006 (1) TMI 647 - SC - Indian Laws

Applications to quash the investigation - seeking to released on bail - large economic scam - violation of applicable banking procedures and regulations - application for recall of the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing investigation u/s 156(3) of the CrPC - Offences under Sections 405, 406, 408, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ), read with Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - HELD THAT - In the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that the complaints, which were filed in respect of malfeasance and misfeasance within the jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad Police, were not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, nor were they alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence as the ones alleged in First C.R. No. 67/2001. In our view, the distinctions drawn by the High Court are fully justified. The High Court was right in observing that the FIRs, which were under challenge before it, were regarding independent and distinct offences. Hence, the FIRs could not be prohibited on the ground that some other FIR had been filed against the Petitioner in respect of other allegations made against the Petitioner. Moreover, the High Court was correctly cognizant of limitations while exercising its powers u/s 482 of the CrPC, which should not in any event, be exercised lightly. Reading the impugned judgment of the High Court as a whole, we are satisfied that there is no scope for interference by us. The High Court was justified in declining to exercise its powers u/s 482 of the CrPC and in refusing to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Finally, considering the nature of the allegations involved and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we too are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) is directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court declining to grant bail to the Petitioner. Having perused the order and the record, Thus, we are not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The order of the High Court appears to be justified. We find no reason to interfere. In the result, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) are found to be without merit and are hereby dismissed. Special Leave Petition is also dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the correctness of ongoing investigations into a large economic crime.
2. Legality of filing multiple complaints for the same alleged offenses.
3. Application of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by the High Court.
4. Bail application and its rejection by the High Court.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the ongoing investigations into a large economic crime by filing special leave petitions against the High Court of Gujarat's judgment. The Reserve Bank of India had appointed an Administrator to manage the affairs of the Bank due to its critical financial situation, leading to criminal complaints against the petitioner and others. The investigations involved allegations of financial irregularities and fraud, resulting in various legal actions, including Public Interest Litigation and criminal complaints.

2. The main argument presented by the petitioner was that filing multiple complaints for the same alleged offenses was not legally permissible. The petitioner relied on legal precedents, including the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, which emphasized the limitations on filing multiple FIRs for the same incident. However, the Supreme Court found that the complaints filed against the petitioner pertained to different parties and branches of the Bank, involving distinct offenses and transactions. The Court upheld the High Court's decision that the complaints were independent and justified, not violating the principles outlined in T.T. Antony.

3. The High Court's application of Section 482 of the CrPC was also scrutinized by the Supreme Court. It was observed that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere with the orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, emphasizing the need for caution when invoking extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court found no grounds for interference in the High Court's judgment.

4. Additionally, the Supreme Court addressed the bail application filed by the petitioner, which was rejected by the High Court. After reviewing the record and submissions, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to bail based on the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions challenging the High Court's judgment and the bail application.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions challenging the ongoing investigations and the legality of multiple complaints, upheld the High Court's application of Section 482 of the CrPC, and affirmed the rejection of the bail application by the High Court.