9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of this Court granting liberty to file a fresh petition, the present case in the second-round ought to have been heard by the Division Bench. We are refraining from pronouncing on the aspect whether there was any clever manipulation of the prayers to clutch at jurisdiction since anything said would prejudice the case of the parties. We say nothing more on this at this stage. Ld. Single Judge, who heard Writ Petition took the view that in view of the consent terms passed by SEBI, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings as it would tantamount to an abuse of the process of the law. We have now adopted, we are refraining from commenting on the contentions of the parties with regard to the merits of the matter. As to whether the respondent had made out a case for quashing the proceedings will be independently decided by the Division Bench which will now hear the matter on remand. The Division Bench will not be influenced by the observations of the previous Division Bench, the order of the Single Judge and also by the present order which we have now passed. The Division Bench will independently decide the matter on its own merits and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05. 4. On 21.02.2006, the CBI registered another criminal case being Criminal Case No. RC4(E)/2006/CBI/BS FC/Mumbai against 26 accused persons on the basis of a similar complaint. This time, it pertained to the fraudulent activities committed in the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the shares of Infrastructure Development Finance Company Ltd. (IDFC), which opened for subscription from 15.07.2005 to 22.07.2005. In this First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the FIR ), the respondent was specifically named. 5. On 29.09.2007, a chargesheet was filed in Criminal Case No. RC4(E)/2006/CBI/BS FC/Mumbai after completion of investigation vide Special Case No. 47 of 2007 against 22 accused persons including the first respondent herein for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 68-A of The Companies Act, 1956. A supplementary chargesheet was also filed in Criminal Case No. RC4/E/2006/BS FC Mumbai which was numbered as Special Case No. 74 of 2014 and further 21 accused persons were added with the Original 22, totaling 43 accused. 6. Similarly, on 19.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The above petition has been filed in January 2018 challenging the chargesheets which have been filed on 02/03/2009. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner endeavoured to demonstrate to us that there is no complicity of the Petitioner in the offences alleged. In our view, it is not possible to accept the said contention at this stage. 2. Having regard to the facts as aforestated, we do not deem it appropriate to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state that the Trial Court would try the case in question on its own merits and in accordance with law. ( Emphasis supplied ) 10. Aggrieved by the above order, the first respondent filed a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3495 of 2018 before this Court. On 07.01.2020, this Court, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the Special Leave Petition, passed the following order : After some arguments, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, prays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to raise the question of effect and legal consequences of Order dated 07.12.2009 passed by the Securities and Exchange Boa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13(l)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and under Section 68-A of the Companies Act, 1956 filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay being Criminal Writ Petition No. 406/2018 seeking quashing of the FIR No. RC 3I 2006/BS FC and FIR No. RC 4I 2006/BS FC/Mumbai and the resultant Charge sheets dated 02.03.2009 and 03.04.2009. 13. It will be noticed that even though the first Writ Petition was filed in 2018 after the cognizance orders of 10.03.2008 and 19.03.2008, the respondent did not make a specific prayer challenging the cognizance orders. The respondent merely challenged the FIR and the charge-sheet. It is quite inexplicable why no challenge was made to the cognizance orders. That matter, namely, Writ Petition No. 406 of 2018 was placed before the Division Bench in accordance with Part 1 Chapter I of the High Court Rules applicable to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which sets out the jurisdiction of Single Judges and Benches of the High Court. Rule 2(II)(h), reads as under:- (h) All applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prayers for quashment of FIR and charge-sheet and incorporated fresh prayers challenging the cognizance orders of 10.03.2008 and 19.03.2008, which two orders were not expressly challenged in the first round. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this was in order to have the matter heard by the Single Judge in view of Rule 18(4) of Part 1 Chapter I of the High Court Rules. Rule 18(4) reads as under:- 18(4) The orders and decisions of the Courts constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, except the application for quashing an F.I.R., C.R. Charge Sheet or an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. irrespective of whether such applications have been filed under Section 482 simpliciter or read with Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution. On merits, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that mere settlement before the SEBI on the adjudication side would not absolve a party from the criminal proceedings and that on the facts of the present case the allegations are of such a nature which warrant the criminal trial to proceed, irrespective of the outcome of the adjudication proceedings. 18. Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
