Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Sanjay Kumar, S/o late Chandramouli Prasad Singh and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Union Of India Through The Assistant Director, Directorate Of Enforcement and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1150 of 2022, Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 79 of 2023
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Punit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3, Ms. Soni Srivastava, Advocate, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation by the Economic Offence Unit and the transfer of all FIRs to the Economic Offence Police Station.
Headnote:
Defect - Writ Application - Ram Nandan Sharma Vs. State of Bihar, 2000 (3) All PLJR 345 - The court found that the reliefs prayed in the writ application were common and needed no separate discussions on the facts. The defect was ignored and ordered accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a writ to conduct a fair investigation into the embezzlement of Rs.1,00,00,00,000 by the respondents, who allegedly duped them by promising flats. The court directed the Director General of Police to file an affidavit and called for a report on the action taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. The petitioners also requested the investigation to be handed over to the Economic Offence Unit or the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court refrained from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to direct the distribution of money or to constitute a committee for the sale of properties under investigation. It directed the Director General of Police to transfer all FIRs to the Economic Offence Police Station and ordered the Economic Offence Unit to take charge of the investigation.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the embezzlement of funds, refusal of police stations to register complaints, and the sanctioning of a loan by the Indian Overseas Bank for a project that did not commence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the investigation should be handled by the Economic Offence Unit and directed the Director General of Police to transfer all FIRs to the Economic Offence Police Station.
Final Decision: The writ applications were disposed of with the court's observations and directions.
JUDGMENT :
So far as defect no. 6(10) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all these petitioners have joined altogether seeking the same and one relief and this common relief may be granted by one stroke of pen without dealing with the individual cases of the petitioners, therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Nandan Sharma Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2000 (3) All PLJR 345, separate court fees is not required.
2. There is no opposition to the aforesaid submission.
3. This Court has perused the reliefs prayed in the writ application. By filing these applications, all the petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to conduct a fair investigation into the allegation of embezzlement of Rs.1,00,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Hundred Crores) of the petitioners who claim that they have been duped by the respondents on the pretext of providing them flats.
4. This Court agrees with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the reliefs prayed are common and need no separate discussions on the facts.
5. The defect no. 6(10) is, therefore, liable to be ignored and is ordered accordingly.
6. So far as defect no. 6(7) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the same has already been submitted.
Brief Facts of the Case
7. These two writ applications have been filed seeking a direction to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to do investigation in the matter of embezzlement of Rs.1,00,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Hundred Crores) of the petitioners who claim that they have been duped by the Respondent No. 8 and its Directors one of whom has been made party Respondent No. 9 in the present writ applications. The petitioners also pray for a direction to initiate action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PMLA, 2002’). With reference to the FIR No. 275 of 2021 dated 28.02.2021 and FIR No. 309 of 2022 dated 10.07.2022 registered against Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 with Buddha Colony Police Station, the petitioners submit that there is an urgent need to take cognizance of these cases as the Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are planning to escape the country as per the sources of the petitioners. In last, it has been prayed that appropriate writ be issued commanding the Respondents particularly the Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 to return the money of the petitioners with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
8. When the writ applications were taken up for consideration as back as on 16.11.2022, this Court called upon the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna to file his affidavit as to how and under what circumstances, the police stations are refusing registration of FIRs which are sought to be lodged by the home buyers who have been duped by the builders/developers. The said direction was issued taking note of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the police stations are not registering the complaints of the home buyers.
9. Vide order dated 16.11.2022, this Court while calling upon the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna to file an affidavit, also called upon the learned C.J.M., Patna to submit a report on the action taken by him after receipt of the complaint in terms of the judgment of the Appellate Authority as contained in Annexure ‘3’ to the writ application.
10. This Court further noticed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that even though the project in this case did not start but the Indian Overseas Bank, Patna has sanctioned and disbursed a loan of more than Rupees Two Hundred Crores approximately. The prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners at the relevant time was that the investigation be either handed over to the Economic Offence Unit, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘EOU’) or to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
11. This Court issued notice to the Indian Overseas Bank, through its Chairman and the Indian Overseas Bank through its Branc
