Back
Quashes Cheating FIR Against Vijay Tata in Ambidant Scam
Bengaluru, – In a significant ruling, the has quashed the criminal proceedings against realtor-businessman Vijay Tata, who was booked as accused No. 5 in the Ambidant Marketing investment scam. Justice R. Nataraj held that there was no incriminating material against Tata except for inadmissible confession statements of co-accused, and that the had mechanically taken without applying its judicial mind. However, the court refused to quash the issued by the , allowing the agency to record Tata’s statement.
The Background: How a Property Deal Led to Criminal Charges
The case originated from an FIR registered on , by the against and its directors under the , and various provisions. The company was accused of luring investors with promises of high returns and then defaulting.
Vijay Tata was initially not named in the FIR. He was the authorized representative of , a company that had entered into sale agreements with , Sanchaya agreed to register 85 flats in favor of Ambidant or its nominees, receiving a total consideration of over ₹35 crore. During the investigation, the took over the case and subsequently filed a arraigning Tata as accused No. 5. The took and issued process against him.
Arguments: "No Material" vs. "Confessions Show Involvement"
Petitioner’s Submissions: Tata’s counsel argued that he was merely an authorized representative and not a director of Sanchaya. Without arraigning the company itself, the petitioner could not be prosecuted for its acts. They contended that the CCB had no authority to investigate since it is not a recognized "police station" under . Crucially, they pointed out that when the court directed the prosecution to produce material justifying the , no incriminating evidence was provided. The only allegations against Tata stemmed from the confession statements of accused Nos. 2 and 3, which are .
State’s Submissions: The Additional SPP argued that the was evident from witness statements. Tata, purportedly the owner of , had allegedly defamed Ambidant and then brokered a deal where Ambidant invested heavily in Sanchaya’s projects at inflated prices. The State contended that Tata received the and that non-arraignment of Sanchaya was not fatal because the court could later summon it under .
Legal Analysis: Confession Without Corroboration Is Not Enough
Justice R. Nataraj meticulously examined the allegations and found that the accusations against Tata were based solely on the confessions of co-accused, which have no evidentiary value at this stage. The court noted that the extract showed Tata was not even a director of Sanchaya.
"Except for the accusations made in the confession statements of accused Nos.2 and 3 which are , there is no material to prosecute the petitioner. It is not as if the petitioner was the recipient of money from M/s. Ambidant. Therefore, there is nothing on record to accuse the petitioner of having committed an offence under ."
The court further held that the allegations did not constitute offences under . Significantly, the ’s order taking was found to be a mechanical exercise—it merely noted that papers were produced and proceeded to take , without any . The court emphasized that taking is a "" requiring careful scrutiny.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
On the value of confession statements:
"Except for the accusations made in the confession statements of accused Nos.2 and 3 which are , there is no material to prosecute the petitioner."
-
On the necessity of arraigning the company:
"…unless M/s. Sanchaya was as an accused, the petitioner could not be prosecuted for acts of M/s. Sanchaya."
-
On the 's failure:
"It is now trite that taking of the offences is not an administrative act, but a , which has to be performed with great care and caution. The did not even apply its mind…"
The ED : A Different Standard
While quashing the FIR and , the court declined to interfere with the issued by the Enforcement Directorate. Relying on earlier judgments, including the 's decision in , the court held that the ED is entitled to summon not only accused in the but also any person who may have knowledge about the . Since Tata admitted being the authorized representative of Sanchaya, which received funds from Ambidant, his presence for recording a statement was justified. The court clarified that all issues regarding his potential arraignment as an accused in the money laundering case are left open.
Final Decision and Implications
The High Court allowed W.P. No. 56732/2018, quashing the FIR, , and the order against Vijay Tata (accused No. 5). The question of whether the CCB is a valid "police station" under was kept open, pending the ’s decision in an ongoing SLP. W.P. No. 24980/2019 challenging the ED was dismissed, allowing the agency to proceed with Tata’s examination.
The court also directed that the sum of ₹4,71,18,816 deposited by Tata shall be released to him only after the conclusion of the trial in the main case against other accused.
This ruling reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained solely on the basis of inadmissible confessions and that courts must exercise careful before taking . At the same time, it underscores the wide investigative powers of the Enforcement Directorate under the .
