Bhambal Ram Meena v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau & Ors

Order

The petitioners in both these writ petitions are accused in a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, in C.C.(SR).No.296 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as such, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.9036 of 2012 is filed, seeking a Writ of

Certiorary, calling for records relating to registration of FIR in Crime No.6/RCO-ACB-CR-1, dated 24.03.2012 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, City Range-1, Hyderabad, against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as illegal and arbitrary, and also to declare the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, as malicious and vindictive one.

3. W.P.No.9211 of 2012 is filed, seeking declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the complaint filed by respondent No.4, in C.C.(SR).No.296 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as illegal and is a malafide manipulative exercise designed to dilute the investigation to be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and to quash the order dated 14.03.2012, passed by the Special Court ordering for registration of crime against the petitioners.

4. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the parties as arrayed in W.P.No.9036 of 2012.

5. The 2nd respondent herein has filed a private complaint in C.C.(SR).No.296 of 2012 before the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In the said complaint, it is alleged that he is a regular subscriber of ‘Sakshi’ newspaper and he has read the article in the daily newspaper dated 6th February 2012, titled as “Dubai loni Villalu Lancham gaa Adiginaaru”. It is the allegation that the petitioners in these writ petitions, who are the Vice- Chairman and Chairman of A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC), have demanded management of Emaar MGF Company for two villas worth of Rs.35 Crores at Dubai. In support of his complaint, the complainant has filed an affidavit of Sri Gangaraju Vijaya Raghava, Financial Head of Emaar MGF, which was filed along with one of the miscellaneous applications filed before this Court in W.P.No.20098 of 2011. On filing the aforesaid complaint before the Special Court, an order dated 14th March 2012, was passed in the following terms : complaint and also “Perused documents filed along with the complaint. As seen from the contents of the complaint and the documents filed in support thereof, the matter discloses a cognizable offence alleged against the accused officers, which requires a thorough investigation. the matter Therefore, referred under Sec.156(3 ) Cr.P.C. to the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for investigation and report by 16- 04-2012”. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a case is registered against the petitioners herein on 24.03.2012, in Crime No.6/RCO-ACB-CR-1, on file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, City Range-1, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and investigation is yet to be carried out.

6. Heard learned counsel Sri V.Pattabhi and Sri M.Sivananda Kumar, appearing for petitioners in these writ petitions.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the allegations made against the petitioners are vague, bald and that no case is made out against them so as to order for registration of crime against them. It is submitted that in the crime registered in RC 35 2011A 0018, dated 17.08.2011, on the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court on a public interest litigation in W.P.No.29358 of 2010, the petitioner in W.P.No.9036 of 2012 is shown as one of the witnesses in the final report filed in the said crime. It is submitted that Sri Gangaraju Vijaya Raghava, who is the Financial Head of Emaar MGF Company, is one of the accused in the aforesaid crime, as such, no credence can be given to the affidavit filed by the said person so as to proceed with investigation against the petitioners in the crime registered against them. It is contended that the 2nd respondent is a stranger to the proceedings and the private complaint filed against the petitioners is a designed one to dilute the crime registered against the Emaar MGF Company and its officials. It is also contended that even in the complaint, no date is mentioned with regard to the alleged demand by the petitioners, and as much as no case is made out even if the contents of the complaint made against the petitioners are taken as it is, it is a fit case to be quashed.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners in both the writ petition, I have also perused the material placed on record, including the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent and the order passed by the trial Court. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the investigation is not yet conducted pursuant to registration of crime. Although it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioners that the 2nd respondent is a stranger to the proceedings, it is well settled that the criminal law can be set in motion at the instance of any person. The concept of locus standi is alien to the criminal juris prudence. In the complaint filed before the Court, there is a specific allegation against both the petitioners that after their taking charge as Vice-Chairman and Chairman of Emaar MGF Company, they demanded the management of said Company for two villas at Dubai, worth Rs.35 Crores. While it is true that Sri Gangaraju Vijaya Raghava, the Financial Head of Emaar MGF Company is one of the accused in the crime registered by CBI in RC 35 2011A 0018, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on a public interest litigation in W.P.No.29358 of 2010, merely because he is an accused, by itself, is no reason to discard his affidavit, at this stage, as the same is filed in proof of complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. It is well settled that the scope of these writ petitions, at this point of time, is confined to examine whether the allegations made in the complaint, if taken at their face value, constitute an offence as alleged or not. In view of the specific complaint of demand for two villas as alleged by the 2nd respondent, if they are proved, they do constitute cognizable offences, which are punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is also to be noticed that the affidavit sought to be relied on in support of the complaint, was filed before this Court along with one of the miscellaneous applications in W.P.No.20098 of 2011, and in that view of the matter, when the Financial Head of the Company himself has filed an affidavit to the effect that the petitioners in these writ petitions have made a demand for two villas in Dubai, worth Rs.35 Crores, it is a matter for investigation. In view of the specific allegations made in the complaint, the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the allegations are vague and bald, cannot be accepted.

9. The learned counsel Sri V.Pattabhi, in support of his case, has placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Baijnath Jha V. Sita Ram and another . The aforesaid case is a case where, the 1st [1] respondent therein was arrested on the allegation of theft of energy, and thereafter, to wreck vengeance on the raiding party members, he instituted a case that they demanded bribe from him. In the aforesaid case, when no date was mentioned with regard to the alleged demand, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and having found that the allegations are vague and proceedings were initiated with mala fide intention, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused. In the case on hand, it is to be noticed that there are specific allegations of demand against the petitioners, and it is not a demand made with the 2nd respondent. Even according to the contents of the complaint, demand was made against the Emaar MGF Company, which has entered into an agreement to develop the project, with APIIC. In the contextual facts of this case, and in view of the specific allegations, it cannot be said that the allegations in the complaint are either vague or mala fide, at this stage. Hence, this judgment is of no help to the case of petitioners.

10. Learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Singh (dead) through LRs. V. Gurpal Singh and others [2] . In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the criminal proceedings are initiated to harass the parties with a mala fide intention, the Court should carefully examine the facts before it. A reading of the aforesaid judgment makes it clear that in the said case, after conclusion of civil proceedings, a private complaint is filed alleging forgery. In the aforesaid case, the suit filed for specific performance of the agreement was decreed and sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent therein, and the appellant’s suit for annulment of the said decree on the ground of forgery, was also dismissed. After 6 long years thereafter, a complaint was filed reiterating the allegation of forgery. In the context of the aforesaid facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that allowing criminal proceedings in such cases, is sheer abuse of the process. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, and in view of the serious nature of allegations made in the complaint made by the 2nd respondent, the said judgment also would not render any assistance in support of the argument made by the learned counsel for petitioners.

11. Yet another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners is in the case of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan V. Ram Gopal Poddar and another [3] . In this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when there is an allegation of theft of gold bangles, having observed that beyond the allegations, there is no other material, and while holding that it is absurd to think that the appellant therein, who was present with the Police party, would venture to pocket the bangles their presence, disbelieved the allegation of theft and held that when the criminal Court looks into the complaint, it has to do so with an open mind. In the case on hand, it is to be noticed that the investigation is yet to be made into the allegations made against the petitioners pursuant to registration of crime based on the order passed by the Special Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, even this judgment is of no help to the case of petitioners.

12. This Court is of the opinion that the allegations made against the petitioners, if taken on their face value, do constitute cognizable offences, and hence, merely because one of the petitioners is a listed witness in the crime registered by CBI pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in a public interest litigation in W.P.No.29358 of 2010, no inference can be drawn at this stage, that the allegations made against the petitioners are made with a mala fide intention. It is well settled that in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the scope of interference at this stage is limited to examine as to whether the contents of complaint, if taken on their face value, constitute a cognizable offence against accused or not. In view of the serious allegations made against the petitioners herein, and as this Court is of the view that said allegations, if proved, would constitute cognizable offences, and as much as the investigation is yet to be made into such allegations, no case is made out by the petitioners to scuttle the investigation at the threshold by entertaining these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th April 2012 [1] [2] [3] (2008) 8 SCC 77 (2010) 8 SCC 775 (2010) 10 SCC 673