Point of Law: Section 319 of Cr.P.C reads as power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

ORDER :

The petitioner is common in all these cases, so also the respondents. It is, therefore, the matters are taken up together and considered by this common order. For the sake of convenience facts pertaining to Criminal Petition No.8421 of 2022 are narrated.

2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 08-07-2022 by which the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru in C.C.No.30796 of 2021 allows an interlocutory application filed by the 1st respondent under Section 319 of the CrPC ordering impleadment of 2nd respondent/Megacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders Limited as accused No.2 in the aforesaid proceedings. The numbers of the proceedings would vary in every case. But, the issue and the parties remain the same.

3. Heard Sri Kiran S.Javali, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned Special Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

4. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent who is now sought to be impleaded as accused No.2 is a Company incorporated on 11-08-1994 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is said to be the erstwhile Managing Director of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent was in the business of developing and constructing properties of lands into dwelling houses, letting or selling them. In the year 1994-95, the 2nd respondent had launched a real estate project in the name and style of ‘Vajragiri Township Project’, a housing scheme for allotment of residential plots to the public. The project attracted about 3100 applications at the time of its launch itself. The Directors were sought to be holding 48 acres of land and had also acquired 490 acres of land in and around Bidadi area for development of residential sites between 1995 and 2001. It appears that due to steep increase in land prices, several land owners who had agreed to sell their lands to the Directors sought to terminate the agreements. In several cases the family members of erstwhile land owners filed suits claiming rights of inheritance and about 130 acres were notified for acquisition by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board for the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure corridor project. It is further averred that due to aforesaid set back in the project, the 2nd respondent developed and registered 1360 residential plots to the applicants and refunded money along with interest to 1030 applicants under various Court orders.

5. The 1st respondent/Serious Fraud Investigation Office investigated into the affairs of the 2nd respondent, its promoters/ Directors under Section 35(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and filed its investigation report on 30-07-2011 before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. In the said report it was alleged inter alia that promoters/Directors of the 2nd respondent have misappropriated subscription money paid by the applicants and certain lands purchased by the 2nd respondent were from the funds generated from the project and were subsequently sold to Prestige Bidadi Holdings Private Limited. On 09-09-2011, the 2nd respondent filed its objections to the investigation report before the 1st respondent. In furtherance of both the report and objections thereto, the Central Government approaches the National Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore (‘the Tribunal’ for short) seeking to replace erstwhile Directors of the 2nd respondent and in their place put in 5 new Directors. The Tribunal, in terms of its order dated 14-03-2019 in Company Petition No.2 of 2014, directed the then existing Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent to be replaced with the Directors nominated by the Central Government.

6. When things stood thus, the Central Government seeks appointment of an Official Liquidator to take charge of the affairs of the 2nd respondent and wind it up. During the pend