TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by forging the signatures and by giving bribe to accused Nos. 1 and 2. That is the only conspiracy set up by the prosecution even in Cr. Nos. 42, 43 and 46/2010. The offences alleged in FIR pertaining to Cr. No. 57/2010 are the same offences and conspiracy or part of the same conspiracy. Offences covered by FIR in Crime No. 57/2010 is part of the same conspiracy, which culminated into the same series of acts forming the same transactions in which the offences alleged in the previous FIR were committed, wherein, the petitioner was summoned by issuance of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. on number of occasions and the documents were seized and necessary information was secured. The transactions in Cr. No. 57/2010 is same or part of the same transaction in Cr. Nos. 42/2010, 43/2010 and 46/2010 i.e., part of the same conspiracy to grab the lands of private persons without payment of compensation by forging consent letters of the land owners. There is no second conspiracy other than the above conspiracy. Regarding the merits, as admitted, no Government money was involved for acquisition of land. The application of M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited was placed before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment of Karnataka had formed a Task Force headed by Azim Premji. The Task Force identified 1422 acres of land in four different villages in Bangalore for the purpose of establishment of IT, ITES and Hardware based Industries. The petitioner was one of the founder directors of M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited alongwith his sister and brother-in-law. It was a private limited company which had interest in software related activities. In the year 2006, the petitioner was desirous of making a proposal for setting up a hardware park, Special Economic Zone. He made an application for establishing IT based Special Economic Zone on the outskirts of Bangalore under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Facilitation Act, 2002 in an area of 325 acres of land at Bandi Kodigehalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk with an investment of ₹ 1130 crores with a potential to generate 75,000 jobs. The petitioner submitted the application to the nodal agency i.e., Karnataka Udyog Mitra. As the project investment was more than ₹ 50.00 crores, under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Facilitation Act, 2002 which was notified on 4.11.2003., the application was placed before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited and M/s. United Telecom Limited (UTL) dated 2.5.2007. Consequently, M/s. United Telecom Limited acquired 99% shares in M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited and majority number of board of directors. The Board of Directors of M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited took a decision to appoint a Land Aggregator Agency by name M/s. Indu Builders and Developers vide a Tripartite Agreement, whereunder Indu Builders Developers would carry out the function of land aggregator and facilitate consent of individual land owners and handle negotiations in that regard. Accordingly, the Management Board of M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited deposited 118 crores to KIADB in terms of Government Guideline value for acquisition of 325 acres of land in Bandi Kodigehalli village. Said sum has been utilized by KIADB to pay for each land owner whose lands have been acquired. Apart from compensation paid by KIADB, M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited through M/s. Indu Builders Developers paid additional ex gratia to each individual land owner for obtaining consent award from the Government. Thus entire acquisition proceedings was privately funded by M/s. Unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mahazar in Cr. No. 42/2010. The Investigation in Cr. No. 42/2010 came to be stayed by this Court in Crl.P. No. 5010/2010. The Lokayukta police continued investigation in Cr. No. 43/2010, regarding alleged irregularities in the matter of acquisition and disbursement of compensation by M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited by summoning the petitioner on 27.10.2010, 28.10.2010, 25.11.2010 and 26.11.2010 under Sections 91 and 160 Cr.P.C. The petitioner appeared before the Lokayukta police on the aforesaid dates and produced the documents sought for and provided all the information. Subsequently, crime No. 43/2010 also came to be stayed in Crl.P. No. 5377/2010. When the matter stood thus, based on the documents and the information furnished by the petitioner in Cr. Nos. 42/2010, 43/2010 and 48/2010 and the revelations allegedly found by the Lokayukta police during the course of investigation in Cr. Nos. 42/2010 and 43/2010, they registered Cr. No. 57/2010 to circumvent the order of stay granted by this Court in which this petitioner came to be arrayed as accused No. 3 using the very same material produced by him in Cr. No. 43/2010 which was sought from him under Sections 91 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12 and 13(1) (a) of P.C. Act and Sections 419, 420, 426, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) IPC. Now the case is posted for hearing before charge and therefore it is proper for the petitioner to address his arguments before framing the charge before the Special Judge. The learned counsel would further submit that the Lokayukta Police have collected sufficient material to establish the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences, the petition is devoid of merits and hence he sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. The gist of the prosecution case is that accused No. 1 at the relevant point of time was the Minister for Major and Medium Industries, Government of Karnataka. Accused No. 2 is the son of accused No. 1, petitioner/accused No. 3 is a practicing Advocate at Bangalore. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were in real estate business in Bangalore. They used to purchase lands and sell it for higher price. For documentation i.e., to prepare the sale agreement, sale deed etc., they used to approach the petitioner, whose father is a leading Advocate in Bangalore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he investigation of Cr. No. 43/2010, this petitioner was summoned under Section 160 Cr.P.C. He gave his statement and produced all the information as sought for. Since the investigation in Cr. No. 43/2010 was stayed by this Court in Cr.P. No. 5377/2010 the Lokayukta police registered another FIR in Cr. No. 57/2010 wherein this petitioner is shown as accused No. 3, Katta Subramanya Naidu as accused No. 1, his son as accused No. 2 and 7 others. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in Spl. CC No. 135/2011 on the file of Special Court. The proceedings against this petitioner sought to be quashed on the ground that there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of offence committed during the course of same transaction. 10. Running through the records and charge-sheet filed in Cr. No. 57/2010, it transpired that in respect of acquisition of land and payment of compensation to the land owners by KIADB for various projects, KIADB officials committed certain irregularities and illegalities. They started demanding bribe amount from the land owners for payment of compensation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CA Software Development Pvt. Limited company for the purpose of investigation. On 27.10.2010, the petitioner was issued with another notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in Cr. No. 43/2010 by K.C. Laxminarayana, Police Inspector, Police Wing, City Division, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore calling upon him to be present in his office on 27.10.2010 for interrogation. Again, he was issued with another notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in Cr. No. 43/2010 to furnish information pertaining to M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited company of the petitioner as sought for in the notice within seven days without fail. The said notice was issued by H.S. Manjunatha, Dy. S.P., Karnataka Lokayukta. Again on 25.11.2010, the petitioner was issued with another two notices by H.S. Manjunatha, Dy. S.P. calling upon him to furnish information sought for in the notices immediately on the same day. On 26.11.2010, he was issued with another notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. in Cr. No. 43/2010 calling upon him to come to Lokayukta office before H.S. Manjunatha, Dy. S.P. and cooperate in the investigation. After further investigation as to the role of M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited in KIA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... True copies of following documents were also seized:-- a. File pertaining to application of M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited, Project report, notices and orders obtained from Karnataka Udyog Mitra on 2.11.2010. b. The Auditor's report of M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited for the year 2005-2007 given by S. Srinivas, Chartered Accountant dated 22.11.2010. c. Report prepared and given by Mohammed Hidayathulla upon going through the balance sheet of M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited company. d. Letters written by Investigating Officer to various offices and persons in relation to M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited company and the reply received. The statements of following persons were also seized. a. Anjana Murthy dated 6.10.2010. b. Srinandan dated 6.10.2010. c. S. Jayanna dated 29.10.2010. d. S.V. Srinivas and S.K.V. Chalapathi. e. B.M. Vijayshankar, Senior Managing Director of IT- BT dated 3.11.2010. f. Mohammed Hidayathulla dated 3.11.2010 and 8.11.2010. g. H.M. Revanna dated 8.11.2010. h. L. Ningaraju dated 8.11.2010. i. Requisition dated 8.11.2010 submitted by XVII Addl. CMM along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rthy, Police Inspector, who was investigating Cr. No. 46/2010 and were transferred to Cr. No. 57/2010 under a mahazar. 15. Thus whatever investigation said to have been done in Cr. No. 57/2010 is nothing but transfer of material collected during investigation of Cr. Nos. 42/2010, 43/2010 and 46/2010 for the same offences. All these documents that were seized in the aforesaid crimes have been transferred to this crime by drawing a panchanama and they were subjected to P.F. in Cr. No. 57/2010. Nothing more is brought on record during the course of investigation of Cr. No. 57/2010. 16. The Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against 10 accused persons including the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No. 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 120-B IPC on 30.6.2011 in Spl. C.C. No. 135/2011 arising out of Cr. No. 57/2010. 17. The gist of charge-sheet reads as under:-- The petitioner-Managing Director of M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited and accused No. 1 and 2 hatched a conspiracy to acquire 325 acres of land in Bandikodigenahalli village for M/s. ITASCA Software Develop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship firm has been created by accused No. 2, 4 and 5. Accused Nos. 6 and 3 transferred 87 crores to the account of M/s. Indu Builders Developers as bribe amount to accused Nos. 1 and 2 for having shown favour . 18. The petitioner has sought to quash FIR in Cr. No. 57/2010 of Lokayukta police station, Bangalore City and the proceedings arising out of the said crime in Spl. C.C. No. 135/2011 on the file of Special Court, on the ground that there can be no second FIR or multiple FIRs in the case of offences relating to same transactions. It is impermissible and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. If we look at the FIR in Cr. Nos. 42/2010, 43/2010, 46/2010 and 57/2010, the offences alleged are one and the same. It discloses that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 hatched conspiracy to acquire 325 acres of land in Bandi kodigehalli village for the establishment of Special Economic Zone by M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited, of which, the petitioner is the Managing Director and in furtherance of the said conspiracy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court in (2013) 6 SCC 384 in the case of Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another. I have perused the FIR in Cr. Nos. 42/2010, 43/2010, 46/2010 and 57/2010 and compared. The place of occurrence in all FIR is same, conspiracy is same, narration of events are same. Except registration of FIR in Cr. No. 57/2010, no further investigation is done and the charge-sheet has been filed by just transferring the documents seized and statement of the witnesses recorded in Cr. Nos. 42/2010, 43/2010 and 46/2010 in Cr. No. 57/2010. 21. The decision relied upon by the petitioner reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others and the decisions reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348 in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another are rightly applicable to the facts of this case. 22. In (2001) 6 SCC 181 in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others in Head note A and B, the Supreme Court held as under:-- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 154 and 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 173- FIR - There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences - Rather, investigating agency may investigate further upon receipt of subsequent information, normally with the leave of Magistrate/court and where during further investigation, investigating agency collects further evidence, oral or documentary, it is obliged to forward the same with one or more supplementary reports/charge-sheets to court. 24. From the ratio laid down in the above decisions of the Apex Court, it is manifest that the registration of second FIR or multiple FIRs in respect of offences committed in the same transactions is impermissible. Considering the scheme of Cr.P.C., fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed under Article 20, 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India and the stand of Lokayukta, FIR in Cr. No. 57/2010 is held to be invalid. Subjecting citizens to fresh investigation on the basis of subsequent FIR or second FIR is abuse of power. It is a fit case to exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the second FIR. The investigation in Cr. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners was deposited by United Telecom Limited. The land was to be acquired by SLAO, KIADB - a Government agency. It is not the case of the Lokayukta that the amount required for payment of compensation was not deposited by M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited and UTL. M/s. Itasca did not gain anything. The amount for payment of ex gratia to the land owners was deposited by M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited into account of M/s. Indu Builders and Developers, which was entrusted with the work of negotiating with the land owners and to obtain the consent letters from the owners to pass the consent award. The case of the Lokayukta is that the amount deposited with M/s. Indu Builders and Developers to make ex gratia payment has been misused by accused Nos. 1 and 2, since M/s. Indu Builders and Developers is a benami company of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 said to have received bribe to approve the application submitted by M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited. Nobody questioned the integrity of the petitioner for all these days. The consent award was passed through KIADB a Government agency. Not a single complaint cropped up with regard to acquis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
