AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking direction of this Court to direct the second",,
respondent herein to receive the petitioner''s complaint dated 21.04.2015 and investigate the same within such period as the Court may specify.,,
The contention of the petitioner herein is that Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited (ARCIL) is a company incorporated under the,,
Companies Act, 1956 and is registered as a securitization company and reconstruction company in terms of Section 3 of the Securitization and",,
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). It is a recognized as a ''financial institution''",,
within the meaning of Section 2 (h) (ia) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. M/s.Indian Bank Limited,",,
Chennai in and around 1995 ? 1996 extended financial facilities to M/s.Abhinav Exim (Madras) Private Limited, M/s.Indeco Builders Private",,
Limited, M/s.Sanjeevi Packaging Private Limited, M/s.Jaimatha Farm Dealers Private Limited, M/s.Well Stores Madras Private Limited and",,
M/s.Ramaraj Trading Private Limited (jointly referred to as ""borrowers"") to a tune of Rs.30,00,00,000/- to secure the repayment properties were",,
mortgaged that Indian Bank. Later, when the borrower defaulted in payment action under the SARFAESI Act was initiated, the possession of the",,
property was taken over by the Bank and later assigned the secured Financial Asset along with interest to the petitioner herein, namely ARCIL.",,
While so, when the petitioner took physical possession of the properties and placed sale notice under Rules 6(2) and Rule 8(6) of the Security",,
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 to the borrowers intimating that the said mortgaged properties were being brought for sale, the borrowers",,
lodged criminal complaints on 18.02.2009 questioning the action of the petitioner fencing the land made to avoid illegal land grabbing. While, fact",,
being so S.P.Velayudham, Son of Sabapathi, who is impleaded as fourth respondent in this petition fabricated two power of attorneys dated",,
23.08.2006 and 07.06.2007 in his favour and by virtue of the said fabricated said power of attorney, he had sold a large extent of the land",,
including the mortgaged properties which are subject matter of secured financial assets assigned to the petitioner herein. The said sale is sham and,,
nominal, since the purchasor is none other than the own son of S.P.Velayudham.",,
The sale consideration of the property is shown as Rs.5,00,00,000/-, whereas the guideline value itself is more than Rs.15,00,00,000/- sale",,
deed was registered for a Paltry sale consideration of Rs.5,00,00,000/-, not stopping with that, the said purchasor Amar, son of S.P.Velayudham",,
had inturn settled these properties to S.P.Velayudham on 13.10.2008. So alleging that the power of attorney documents in respect of the,,
properties executed in favour of S.P.Velayudham is a fabricated document and the consequential sale by S.P.Velayudham in favour of his son,,
Amar and subsequent settlement by Amar in favour of S.P.Velayudham are all sham and nominal, ex facie void, non-est in law and do not confer",,
any right, title or interest upon him. But, all created for the purpose of defeating the interest of the petitioner, who is the secured creditor.",,
Therefore, case of offences under Section 420, 441, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with 120(B) of IPC is made out and since, the matter",,
involves Bank fraud exceeding 25 crores of rupees, as per the Central Vigilance Commission manual, the matter has to be investigated by the CBI,",,
the second respondent herein. Hence, the present petition.",,
After notice, the second respondent has filed counter wherein it is contended that though the petitioner''s company has been sponsored by",,
prominent banks, it is not part of these Nationalised Banks as none fo the Nationalised banks holds 51% paid up share capital in the petitioner",,
company to give the petitioner a status of Government Company and further warranting the intervention of CBI. The Hon''ble High Court of,,
Karnataka at Bangalore in its Judgment dated 23.02.2012 while disposing Crl.RP.No.1136 of 2004 c/w. Crl.RP.No.207 of 2005 had clearly,,
opined that even Canfin Homes a subsidiary of Canara Bank, a Nationalised Bank, is not a Government Company, also submitted that the Central",,
Crime Branch, CCB Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Vepery, Chennai as already registered a case in Crime No.41 of 2009 against S.P.Velayudham for",,
similar offences and this Court vide its order dated 15.12.2015 had directed the Inspector of Police, CCB to Expedite the investigation and also to",,
examine the present petitioner and to collect relevant materials from him. There is no interest for the CBI to take up the investigation.,,
Where as the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent submitted that, with the very same set of allegation one D.Gobichandran filed",,
a complaint and taken up for investigation by CCB in Crime No.41 of 2009 and it was quashed by the Hon''ble High Court in Crl.O.P.No.10825,,
of 2010 by Justice M.V.Muralidaran,J., on 05.07.2017. In the said petition, the present petitioner ARCIL got itself impleaded as seventh",,
respondent and made it submissions and after taking note of the submissions made by the petitioner herein, the Court has observed as under.",,
The learned senior counsel appearing for the 7th respondent would submit that a separate complaint on the same issue has been",,
preferred before the CBI by the 7th respondent and an application in Crl.O.P.No.11060 of 2015 has been preferred before this,,
Court seeking to register the said complaint, which is still pending. However, no material has been placed before me to even suggest",,
commission of any offence by the petitioners in order to justify continuance of criminal investigation as against them and continuation,,
of the impugned criminal proceedings cannot be justified solely on the ground that a fresh complaint has also been preferred.""",,
and submitted that, the matter has already been taken note by the other bench of this Court and the petitioner herein being a party to the",,
proceedings, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the said Court, it has to prefer appeal against that order before the Higher",,
Forum but cannot agitate this petition on the ground that there is difference in the gist of allegations made by them and in the complaint preferred by,,
D.Gobichandran, which has been quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.10825 of 2010.",,
Further, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent also brought to the notice of this Court that the same petitioner preferred a complaint",,
before the Commissioner of Police on 19.09.2013 and filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.26339 of 2014 with the same said of fact,",,
but later withdraw the petition. Hence, it was ""dismissed as withdrawn"" on 15.10.2014. Placing a comparison chart of",,
(i) Crime No.41 of 2009 on the file of CCB, Chennai preferred by D.Gobichandran,",,
(ii) complaint dated 19.09.2013 preferred by the petitioner herein before Commissioner of Police, Chennai and the order passed in",,
Crl.O.P.No.26339 of 2014 and,,
(iii) the complaint dated 21.04.2015 preferred before the CBI by the petitioner herein which is the subject matter of this present petition, he",,
Crime No.41 of 2009, CCB, Chennai",Crl.O.P.No.26339 of 2014,Crl.O.P.No.11060 of 2015
Mr.D.Gobichandran, authorized signatory of
M/s.Info Vision (P) Ltd and 4 others
companies (Adverse claimants of title /
mortgagors)","ARCIL (Purported Mortgagee - Through
the adverse claimants of title)
Complaint dated 19.09.2013 was
preferred before the Commissioner of
Police, Chennai","ARCIL (Purported Mortgagee - Through
the adverse claimants of title)
Complaint dated 21.04.2015 was
preferred before the CBI.
Gist of Allegations,,
One, Deenadayalu Reddiar and his son,
Venkatakrishnan had issued power of
attorney pertaining in favour of
S.P.Velayudham, with respect to an extent
of about 9.92 acres without having title over
the same.
Based on the power of attorney,
S.P.Velayudham had executed a sale deed
in favour of his son, Amar.
Thereafter, Amar had conveyed the land in
favour of his father, S.P.Velayudham, by
way of a settlement deed.
Revenue records were mutated by colluding
with the officials.
(FIR @ page 1 of the Additional Typed set
dated 02.10.2015 filed by the impleading
petitioner/F4)","S.P.Velayudham had obtained two deeds
power of attorney from one, Deenadayalu
Reddiar and his son, Venkatakrishnan,
pertaining to the subject land, who did not
have any title overthe same.
Based on the power of attorney,
S.P.Velayudham had executed a sale
deed in favour of his son, Amar for a
meagre sale consideration.
Thereafter, Amar had conveyed the land
in favour of his father, S.P.Velayudham,
by way of a settlement deed.
Revenue records were mutated by
colluding with the officials.
(Petition @ page 141 of the Typed set
dated 10.08.2015 filed by the impleading
petitioner/R4)","S.P.Velayudham had obtained two deeds
power of attorney from one, Deenadayalu
Reddiar and his son, Venkatakrishnan,
pertaining to the subject land, who did not
have any title over the same.
Based on the power of attorney,
S.P.Velayudham had executed a sale
deed in favour of his son, Amar for a
meagre sale consideration.
Thereafter, Amar had conveyed the land
in favour of his father, S.P.Velayudham,
by way of a settlement deed.
Revenue records were mutated by
colluding with the officials.
(Earlier complaint dated 19.09.2013 and
withdrawal of Crl.O.P.No.26339 of 2014
were suppressed)
Result,,
The complaint was found to be a pure civil
dispute and FIR was quashed by this
Hon''ble Court by wasy of order dated
05.07.2017 passed in Crl.O.P.No.10825 of
2010.
(Page 1 of the Additional Typed set dated
08.08.2017 filed by R4)","The petition was dismissed as withdrawn
by way of an order dated 15.10.2014.
(Petition @ page 141 of the Typed set
dated 10.08.2015 filed by the impleading
petitioner/R4)",---
2009, some witnesses have been examined and some documents have been collected.",,
Considering the fact that for similar offences, already a complaint has been given and the same has been registered in Crime No.41",,
of 2009 and the same is in the midst of investigation, the following direction can be given to the Investigating Officer without disposing",,
of Criminal Original Petition No.11060 of 2015:,,
The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Vepery is strictly directed to conduct expeditious",,
investigation in Crime No.41 of 2009. During investigation, the Investigating Officer is also directed to examine the petitioner",,
found in Criminal Original Petition No.11060 of 2015 and also collect relevant materials from it.""",,
The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner reading through the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts Due to,,
Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 contented that the petitioner institution is a ""financial Institution"" and it is consortium of Nationalised",,
Banks essentially created for off loading their deficit due to non performing assets. It is created for mitigating the difficulty in recovering dues from,,
non performing assets. It literally enter the shoes of the lending Bank. Therefore, because it is described as Private Sector Company, CBI cannot",,
claim that the alleged crime is not a fraud on Bank and will not fall within its jurisdiction.,,
The question whether CBI is by default competent to enquire the complaint or by direction of the Court to enquire the complaint will arise only,,
if any Criminal Act is made out in the complaint.,,
As pointed out, for the very same set of facts, the complaint given by D.Gobichandran had been registered and investigated in Crime No.41 of",,
2009 and later quashed in Crl.O.P.No.10825 of 2010 dated 05.07.2017, after considering the plea of D.Gobichandran the defacto complainant,",,
the S.P.Velayudham person against whom the accusation made, ARCIL (petitioner herein) and the investigation agency. The Court had arrived at",,
a conclusion that the issue is Civil in nature and no culpability is made out in the act of fourth respondent herein.,,
Thereafter, as pointed, this Court has quashed the complaint in Crime No.41 of 2009 vide its order dated 05.07.2017 in Crl.O.P.No.10825",,
of 2010. Therefore, there is no point in agitating, the same set of facts as alleged in Crime No.41 of 2009 in different form and before different",,
investigating agency.,,
In the opinion of this Court, at the most the petitioner has to challenge the order of the Single Judge pssed in Crl.O.P.No.10825 of 2010 dated",,
05.07.2017 before the Higher Forum and get redressal and cannot sustain this petition.,,
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.",,