2023 (9) TMI 1433 - HC - Indian Laws

Constitutional validity of Section 420 I.P.C.ultra vires on the vice of Article 14 21 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - The impugned F.I.R. dated 15.04.2023 lodged at the instance of the Respondent No. 3 and the consequent registration of ECIR against the present petitioners is the subject matter of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10893 of 2023. The said writ petition has already been entertained and an interim protection has been granted to the petitioners therein. Though, a recall of the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Apex Court, which order forms one of the basis of our order, is stated to be pending, or for that matter a SLP is also stated to have been filed against our interim order dated 13.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10893 of 2023, there is no order staying the effect and operation of either of the orders. In such view of the matter, there are no justifiable ground to take a different view as taken while passing the order dated 13.07.2023. List this case after six weeks along with connected matters.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 420 I.P.C. and seeking to quash an F.I.R. under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. The petition also requests interim relief to stay the summoning and proceedings related to the F.I.R. and ECIR registered against the petitioners.

Details of the Judgment:

Challenge to Section 420 I.P.C.:
The writ petition sought to declare Section 420 I.P.C. as manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. It also aimed to quash the impugned F.I.R. and consequent proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 4. The petitioners requested interim relief to stay the summoning and proceedings against them.

Transfer of Share Holding and Alleged Financial Loss:
The case involved the transfer of shareholding of M/s Kadam Developers Pvt. Ltd., which was alleged to be in violation of the law and causing a financial loss of Rs. 200 Crores to YEIDA/Respondent No. 3. This led to the lodging of the impugned F.I.R. and the registration of an ECIR by the Directorate of Enforcement treating the F.I.R. as a scheduled offence.

Contentions of the Counsels:
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the case of the petitioners was similar to another writ petition where interim protection had been granted. On the other hand, the counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement contended that serious financial irregularities had been committed and suggested that the petitioners explore other legal remedies available to them.

Court's Decision:
After considering the submissions, the Court noted that the impugned F.I.R. and ECIR were already the subject matter of another writ petition where interim protection had been granted. As there was no stay on the previous orders, the Court found no justifiable ground to take a different view. Consequently, the Court connected the present writ petition with the earlier one and ordered the exchange of pleadings within six weeks.

Stay on Proceedings:
In line with the order passed in the previous writ petition, the Court stayed further proceedings, including summoning of the Officers, Representatives, and Managers, and directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners until the next listing date.

This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the issues involved in the judgment, the arguments presented by the counsels, and the Court's decision on each aspect of the case.