Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 242 OF 2019
Satinder Singh Bhasin … Petitioner
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. … Respondents
O R D E R
1. By this order, we propose to dispose of the prayer for interim
reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d) of this writ petition. In
terms of prayer clause (c), the petitioner has prayed for grant of
bail in respect of FIRs mentioned therein registered at Police Station
Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh and
Signature Not Verified
Police Station Economic Offences Wing and at Parliament Street,
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2019.11.06
11:14:17 IST
Reason:
New Delhi and all other FIRs that have been lodged against the
2
petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of NCT of Delhi
but are not within the knowledge of the petitioner and any other
FIRs that come to the knowledge of this Court or the petitioner
during the pendency of the writ petition. In terms of prayer clause
(d), the petitioner has sought relief of stay of proceedings emanating
from the concerned FIRs mentioned therein registered at Police
Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh
and FIR registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing and at
Parliament Street, New Delhi and all other FIRs that have been
lodged against the petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh and State
of NCT of Delhi but are not within the knowledge of the petitioner
and any other FIRs that come to the knowledge of this Court or the
petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition.
The substantive relief claimed in the writ petition, by invoking
2.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for violation of fundamental
rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the
Constitution of India, is to issue mandamus directing CBI to take
over investigation of all the FIRs registered against the petitioner in
the State of UP and the State of NCT of Delhi respectively in
3
connection with the project by the name “Grand Venice” in the
National Capital Region in particular Mall and a Commercial Tower
thereof and in respect of which by separate agreements, the
company of which the petitioner is the Director, had agreed to sell
units in the stated Mall and Commercial Tower as the case may be,
to the concerned party. In the alternative, it is prayed that the FIRs
filed against the petitioner at different points of time in the State of
UP or the State of NCT of Delhi be consolidated and the
investigation be entrusted to one agency so that criminal action
against the petitioner can proceed at one place.
As regards transfer of investigation of all the FIRs to the CBI,
3.
in our opinion, the facts of the case do not warrant such a relief.
Similarly, the first part of the alternative relief claimed by the
petitioner to consolidate all FIRs, prima facie, in our opinion, do not
merit consideration. However, the second part of the alternative
relief may require deeper consideration in light of the submissions
made across the Bar by both the parties and the learned counsel for
the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of NCT of Delhi. Prima facie,
4
the decision pressed into service to oppose even that relief in the
case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr. vs. Union of India &
1
does not completely rule out the possibility of entrusting the
Ors.
investigation of all the FIRs to one agency in one State by transfer of
FIRs and investigation thereof from one State to another State. That
appears to be a debatable issue. Our attention has also been
drawn to another threeJudge Bench decision in the
State of
2
Punjab & Anr. vs. Rajesh Syal . As aforesaid, the second part of
the alternative substantive prayer being a debatable issue, can be
considered at the appropriate stage.
4. Reverting to the interim relief claimed especially in terms of
prayer clause (c), the same reads, thus :
“Grant bail to the Petitioner herein in FIR No.140/2019,
FIR No.273/2019, FIR No.249/2019, FIR No.275/2019,
FIR No.248/2019, FIR No.252/2019, FIR No.274/2019,
FIR No.262/2019, FIR No.244/2019, FIR No.276/2019,
FIR No.278/2019, FIR No.245/2019, 257/2019, FIR No.
FIR No.313/2019, FIR No.309/2019, FIR No.258/2019,
FIR No.251/2019, 272/2019 all at P.S. Kasna, Gautam
Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh; all other
FIRs that have been lodged against the Petitioner but
are not within the knowledge of the Petitioner and any
other FIRs that come to the knowledge of this Hon’ble
1 (2002) 2 SCC 210
2 (2002) 8 SCC 158
5
Court or the Petitioner during the pendency of this Writ
Petition; subject to such conditions as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper irrespective of any order
made or proceedings or applications pending in any of
the courts other than this Hon’ble Court.”
It is noticed from the pleadings and the affidavits filed on
5.
record, that the petitioner’s application for grant of bail in respect of
17 FIRs registered at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar,
Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh have already been rejected by the
concerned Court. Those orders have not been assailed. But in the
writ petition, it is urged that instead of asking the petitioner to file
separate bail applications, this court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction, may entertain a common prayer in that regard and
grant bail to the petitioner as recently granted in similar situation
by another Bench of this Court in Surinder Singh Alagh vs.
3
.
Union of India & Ors.
6. It is noticed from the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of
Uttar Pradesh that in all the 17 cases where bail applications have
been rejected, and, in another case, where the bail application is
pending before the concerned Court, charge sheets have already
3 Writ Petition (Criminal) No.196 of 2019 and connected matters (Order dated 02.08.2019)
6
been filed in the concerned Court. It is also noticed that out of 37
cases registered at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar,
Greater NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner has been granted bail
in 11 cases and eight cases are still under investigation. Similarly,
five FIRs are registered in the State of NCT of Delhithree at Police
Station Parliament Street and two with the Economic Offences
Wing, New Delhi. In those FIRs the petitioner has been granted bail
in three cases by the concerned Court.
7. It is also noticed from the allegations in all the separate FIRs
filed before the concerned Police Stations that the same are virtually
similar if not identical or stereo type; and essentially making
grievance about the nondelivery of possession of the units to the
concerned complainant/allottee(s) including the assured lease
rental/assured returns in respect of the concerned units. The other
common aspects in the separate FIRs is about the noncompletion
of the project as assured and about siphoning of funds raised for
the completion of project in question. The common allegation is
also about the legality or impropriety in allotment of land to the
7
company by the officials of Uttar Pradesh State Industrial
Development Corporation (UPSIDC). The latter allegation, however,
is common only in the FIRs registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Notably, the investigation of FIRs registered at Police Station Kasna
has been entrusted to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted
by the State of Uttar Pradesh. To that extent, all the 37 FIRs
registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh are being investigated by
one agency and that agency has filed charge sheet(s) in almost 28
cases thus far.
8. We have also noticed that out of five cases registered in the
State of NCT of Delhi, with similar allegations, 72 out of 91
informants in the Kasna FIRs are also informants in the FIRs
registered with the Economic Offences Wing at Delhi. Indeed, the
common informants have offered explanation as to the
circumstances in which they became party/complainant in the FIRs
registered at Kasna Police Station. For the time being, it is not
necessary for us to examine that controversy.
8
9. It is also relevant to mention that bail granted by the Court of
competent jurisdiction at Delhi (CMM/ND/Patiala House Court) has
imposed onerous conditions to be observed by the petitioner, as
th
noticed from the order dated 15 May, 2019. It is a different matter
that the petitioner has not been able to avail of any of the bail and
th
is in custody since 12 February, 2019 because of the successive
FIRs registered at different places and custody warrants issued at
the instance of different police stations from time to time.
10. The petitioner, on the other hand, would contend that the
allegation that the project, in particular, Mall and Commercial
Tower in respect of which the stated FIRs have been registered
being incomplete, is not correct. For, the UPSIDC has already
th
issued completion certificate on 16 April, 2015 as well as the
rd
occupancy certificate on 3 March, 2017 with retrospective date of
issuance of completion certificate in respect of the Mall and
Commercial Tower portion, i.e., the entire project except the hotel
portion. The FIRs referred to in the writ petition in prayer clause (c)
are limited to the units in Mall and Commercial Tower of the project
9
in respect of which occupancy certificate has been obtained. The
petitioner asserts that the petitioner has handed over possession to
77 allottees in the Mall and 245 allottees in the Commercial Tower.
The Mall and the Commercial Tower are fully functional and have
been occupied by the brands such as Cine Appeals, Big Bazar,
Burger King, H&M etc. The case of the petitioner is that the
allottees who have rushed to register FIRs are unwilling to take
possession of their unit(s) and are refusing to make payment of the
balance consideration amount. In other words, the allottees are not
discharging their part of the contractual obligation. Whereas, the
petitioner and the company are facing multiple proceedings
including before Company Judge [High Court/National Company
Law Tribunal (NCLT)] and also before the concerned forum under
Consumer Protection Act for the same subject matter.
11. It is not necessary for us to examine the correctness of the
allegations made against the petitioner or the response filed by the
petitioner thereto. Suffice it to observe that the project is situated
in the National Capital Region and within the territorial jurisdiction
of Kasna Police Station (State of Uttar Pradesh). Majority of the
10
cases are registered with the said police station and the concerned
police station is inviting further complaints from similarly placed
aggrieved persons as a result of which new cases are being
registered and investigated by the U.P. State constituted SIT. The
SIT of the State of Uttar Pradesh is investigating into a new angle
which had cropped up during the course of investigation, about the
possibility of collusive and collaborative acts of commission and
omission of the officials of the UPSIDC. All this is being
investigated by the SIT constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh
which, in turn, has filed charge sheet(s) in as many as 28 FIRs thus
far.
12. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to
grant interim relief claimed by the petitioner to release him on bail
directly by this Court in connection with all the FIRs mentioned in
prayer clause (c) and other FIRs that have been or likely to be
registered against the petitioner in connection with the project,
namely, “Grand Venice”, in particular, Mall and Commercial Tower
thereof, at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater
11
Noida, Uttar Pradesh or any other Police Station within the territory
of the State of Uttar Pradesh and, in the same manner, the FIRs
registered at the Police Stations in the State of NCT of Delhi at
Police Station Parliament Street and by the Economic Offences
Wing New Delhi or otherwise.
13. As regards, interim relief of stay of proceedings against the
petitioner emanating from the FIRs mentioned in prayer clause (d),
that relief can be considered only in respect of FIRs registered in the
State of NCT of Delhi, be it with the Economic Offences Wing or
Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi. The question of
granting stay of proceedings pending against the petitioner in
connection with the FIRs registered at Police Station Kasna,
Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh does not arise
as the same are being investigated by one investigating agency,
namely, the SIT constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh. In case
any FIR is already registered within the State of Uttar Pradesh in
Police Station other than Police Station Kasna, we have no manner
of doubt that the SIT will take necessary steps to take over the
12
investigation of all such FIRs registered within the State of Uttar
Pradesh.
14. Be it noted that we are inclined to stay further proceedings
only arising from the FIRs registered at New Delhi because the
substratum of the allegations in the FIRs filed at Delhi are similar
and, more so, as aforementioned, 72 complainants are common at
both the places. We may, however, permit the remaining
informants/complainants in FIRs registered at New Delhi to register
their complaint with the Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar,
Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh if so advised, which can also be
investigated by the SIT constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
15. We are conscious of the fact that out of five cases registered
within the State of NCT of Delhi brought to the notice of this Court,
charge sheet has been filed in one of the FIRs. However, until the
entire issue is debated and considered by this Court, to meet the
ends of justice, it would be expedient to stay the further
proceedings in connection with all the FIRs registered or to be
registered hereinafter in the State of NCT of Delhi.
13
In view of the above, we dispose of the prayers for interim
16.
relief, in terms of the prayer clauses (c) and (d) of the writ petition
on the following basis :
A. The petitioner is granted bail in respect of all the
FIRs referred to in prayer clause (c) in respect of the
project by name “Grand Venice” in NCR, in particular,
Mall and Commercial Tower thereof, on the following
conditions:
(i) That the petitioner shall not commit any
offence of similar type of which he has been
accused.
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat, or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to denude such person from disclosing such facts
to any Police Station or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The petitioner shall join further
investigation as and when called upon to do so by
14
the Investigating Officer or by the SIT constituted
by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(iv) The petitioner shall deposit his passport
with the Registry of this Court within a period of
two weeks from today. If it is with the Police
Station at Kasna or any Police Station in the
State of NCT of Delhi, the concerned Police
Station shall cause to deposit petitioner’s
passport in the Registry of this Court within the
same time.
(v) The petitioner shall report to the
Investigating Officer nominated by SIT,
constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh on
every Monday between 11 A.M. to 12 Noon and
shall also appear before the concerned Court as
and when called upon to do so.
(vi) The petitioner shall deposit an aggregate
amount of Rs.50,00,00,000/ (Rupees fifty crore
only) before the Registry of this Court as a pre
condition for grant of bail. On deposit of such
15
amount, authenticated copy of the receipt issued
by this Court be produced before the concerned
Court/Investigating Officer. The amount so
deposited by the petitioner in the Registry, be
invested in an appropriate interest bearing
deposit scheme in a nationalized bank until
further orders including to renew the deposit
from time to time.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish personal bail
bond of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees five lac only) with
one surety in the like amount in connection with
each FIR independently.
(viii) After being released on bail in terms of this
order, the petitioner shall make every possible
attempt to settle the claims of the concerned
complainant(s)/informant(s) as far as possible
within six to eight months as ordered by the
Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala
House Courts while granting bail to the petitioner
in FIR No.38/2018 registered with the Economic
16
th
Offences Wing, New Delhi vide order dated 15
May, 2019.
(ix) If the petitioner fails to abide by any of the
above conditions intentionally and if it is so
established before this Court, no less than 50%
of the amount deposited by him in this Court in
terms of this order [Clause (vi) above] shall stand
forfeited.
(x) The petitioner shall extend full cooperation
to the concerned Court as and when necessary
for early disposal of the cases.
B. All further proceedings emanating from FIRs
registered at Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi
or Economic Offence Wing, New Delhi or any other FIR
already lodged or to be lodged hereafter in State of NCT of
Delhi against the petitioner in connection with the project
named “Grand Venice”, in particular, units in Mall and
Commercial Tower thereof, shall remain stayed until
further orders.
17
th
17. Let the writ petition be notified for further hearing on 15
January, 2020. All concerned shall file reply affidavits/rejoinder
affidavits in the main writ petition, in the meantime if so advised.
.……………………………,J.
[A.M. Khanwilkar]
.……………………………,J.
[Dinesh Maheshwari]
New Delhi;
November 6, 2019.