SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 1230

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Satinder Singh Bhasin – Petitioner
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 242 OF 2019
Decided On : 06-11-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mukul Rohtagi, Sameer Rohtagi, Nikhil Bhalla, Lokesh Bhola, Abhimanyu Bhandari, Nupur Kumr, Sanchit Gauri, Shivendra Singh, Aarush Bhatia, Priyansha Indra Sharma, Sunil Fernandes, Advocates
For the Respondent:Chirag M. Shroff, Mahima c. Shroff, Yashika Verma, Riya Thomas, Aishwarya Bhati, AAG for U.P. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Pranav Kashyap, Divya Sharma, Gopal Jha, Gopal Prasad, Shalya Agarwal, Arv Kapoor, Parijat Kishore, Prerna Singh, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Avni Sharma, Rakesh Kr. Singh, Vijay Pratap Singh, Prem Prakash, Sumeer Sodhi, Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Vinay Mohan Sharma, Vinayak Sharma, Shreya Sharma, Jainendra Kumar Ojha, Suchi Singh, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Nidhi, Kumar Shashank, Shagufa Salim, Nivesh Kumar, V.V. Gautam, Prashant Kr. Dubey, Shree Pal Singh, Gauri Rishi, Pranav Gupta, Avinash Sharma, Manoj K. Mishra, Umesh Dubey, Jyoti Mishra, Sukumar, S.S. Ghangra, Diptabrata Batabyal, Dr. Amardeep Gaur, M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Manju Jetley, Geeta Luthra, Ankit Goel, Raghvendra Kumar , S. K. Verma, Asmita Narula, Vishal Prasad, Shree Prakash Sinha, Rakesh Mishra, Mohna Sinha, Narendra Kr., Marina Wheeler, Shekhar Kumar, Siddharth Dave, Mukesh Kumar, Aparna Trivedi, Ashutosh Mohan, Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Mrs. Garima Bajaj, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, O.P. Bhadani, Arpit Maheshwari, K.M. Natraj, ASG Ranjan Narayan, Shailesh Madiyal, Kartik Anand, Sudhanshu Prakash, Chandra Shekhar, Prashant Shekhar, Sanjay Kr. Tyagi, Manish Malhotra, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
FIRs having common allegations can be clubbed together so that criminal action against accused can proceed at one place.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 173 and 439Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 – Petition for CBI investigation – Prayer for release on bail – As regards transfer of investigation of all FIRs to CBI, facts of case do not warrant such a relief – Similarly, first part of alternative relief claimed by petitioner to consolidate all FIRs, prima facie, do not merit consideration – However, second part of alternative relief that investigation be entrusted to one agency so that criminal action against petitioner can proceed at one place, may require deeper consideration – In all separate FIRs filed before concerned Police Stations allegations are virtually similar if not identical or stereo type; and essentially making grievance about non-delivery of possession of units to concerned complainant/allottee(s) including assured lease rental/assured returns in respect of concerned units – Court inclined to grant interim relief claimed by petitioner to release him on bail directly by this Court in connection with all FIRs that have been or likely to be registered against petitioner in connection with project – Petitioner shall deposit an aggregate amount of Rupees fifty Crore before Registry of this Court as a pre-condition for grant of bail, apart from complying with other conditions – All further proceedings shall remain stayed until further orders. (Paras 3, 7, 12 and 16)

Facts of the case:

Substantive relief claimed in the writ petition, by invoking Article 32 of Constitution of India for violation of fundamental rights of petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of Constitution of India, is to issue mandamus directing CBI to take over investigation of all FIRs registered against petitioner in State of UP and State of NCT of Delhi respectively in connection with the project by name “Grand Venice” in National Capital Region in particular Mall and a Commercial Tower thereof and in respect of which by separate agreements, company of which the petitioner is the Director, had agreed to sell units in the stated Mall and Commercial Tower as the case may be, to the concerned party. In alternative, it is prayed that FIRs filed against the petitioner at different points of time in State of UP or State of NCT of Delhi be consolidated and investigation be entrusted to one agency so that criminal action against petitioner can proceed at one place.

Findings of Court:

Out of five cases registered within State of NCT of Delhi brought to the notice of this Court, charge sheet has been filed in one of the FIRs. However, until entire issue is debated and considered by this Court, to meet ends of justice, it would be expedient to stay further proceedings in connection with all FIRs registered or to registered hereinafter in State of NCT of Delhi.

Result : Petition disposed of.

ORDER

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of the prayer for interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d) of this writ petition. In terms of prayer clause (c), the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in respect of FIRs mentioned therein registered at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh and Police Station Economic Offences Wing and at Parliament Street, New Delhi and all other FIRs that have been lodged against the petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of NCT of Delhi but are not within the knowledge of the petitioner and any other FIRs that come to the knowledge of this Court or the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. In terms of prayer clause (d), the petitioner has sought relief of stay of proceedings emanating from the concerned FIRs mentioned therein registered at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh and FIR registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing and at Parliament Street, New Delhi and all other FIRs that have been lodged against the petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of NCT of Delhi but are not within the knowledge of the petitioner and any other FIRs that come to the knowledge of this Court or the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition.

2. The substantive relief claimed in the writ petition, by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India for violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India, is to issue mandamus directing CBI to take over investigation of all the FIRs registered against the petitioner in the State of UP and the State of NCT of Delhi respectively in connection with the project by the name “Grand Venice” in the National Capital Region in particular Mall and a Commercial Tower thereof and in respect of which by separate agreements, the company of which the petitioner is the Director, had agreed to sell units in the stated Mall and Commercial Tower as the case may be, to the concerned party. In the alternative, it is prayed that the FIRs filed against the petitioner at different points of time in the State of UP or the State of NCT of Delhi be consolidated and the investigation be entrusted to one agency so that criminal action against the petitioner can proceed at one place.

3. As regards transfer of investigation of all the FIRs to the CBI, in our opinion, the facts of the case do not warrant such a relief. Similarly, the first part of the alternative relief claimed by the petitioner to consolidate all FIRs, prima facie, in our opinion, do not merit consideration. However, the second part of the alternative relief may require deeper consideration in light of the submissions made across the Bar by both the parties and the learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of NCT of Delhi. Prima facie, the decision pressed into service to oppose even that relief in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 210 does not completely rule out the possibility of entrusting the investigation of all the FIRs to one agency in one State by transfer of FIRs and investigation thereof from one State to another State. That appears to be a debatable issue. Our attention has also been drawn to another three­Judge Bench decision in the State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Rajesh Syal, (2002) 8 SCC 158. As aforesaid, the second part of the alternative substantive prayer being a debatable issue, can be considered at the appropriate stage.

4. Reverting to the interim relief claimed especially in terms of prayer clause (c), the same reads, thus :­

“Grant bail to the Petitioner herein in FIR No.140/2019, FIR No.273/2019, FIR No.249/2019, FIR No.275/2019, FIR No.248/2019, FIR No.252/2019, FIR No.274/2019, FIR No.262/2019, FIR No.244/2019, FIR No.276/2019, FIR No.278/2019, FIR No.245/2019, 257/2019, FIR No. FIR No.313/2019, FIR No.309/2019, FIR No.258/2019, FIR No.251/2019, 272

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top