TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to set aside the judgement and remand the Writ Petitions to be heard a Division Bench of the High Court, only a brief reference to the facts of the case is being made hereinbelow. 3. The appellant-Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the 'CBI'), on 20.02.2006, registered a Criminal Case No. RC3(E)/2006/BS&FC/Mumbai against 19 accused persons on the basis of a written complaint made by R. Ravichandran, Chief General Manager, Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'SEBI"). The allegation was with regard to certain fraudulent activities committed in the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the shares of Yes Bank Ltd., which opened for subscription from 15.06.2005 to 21.06.2005. 4. On 21.02.2006, the CBI registered another criminal case being Criminal Case No. RC4(E)/2006/CBI/BS&FC/Mumbai against 26 accused persons on the basis of a similar complaint. This time, it pertained to the fraudulent activities committed in the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the shares of Infrastructure Development Finance Company Ltd. (IDFC), which opened for subscription from 15.07.2005 to 22.07.2005. In this First Information Report (hereinafter ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is at this stage that the respondent approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 406 of 2018 under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the Division Bench on 27.02.2018 by passing the following order: "1. The above Writ Petition has been filed for quashing of the chargesheet dated 02.03.2009 (sic.) filed pursuant to the FIRs being numbers RC3(E)/2006/BS&FC/Mumbai dated 20/03/2006 and RC4(E)/2006/BS&FC/Mumbai dated 21/02/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the IPC. The said FIRs have been lodged by the SEBI. The gravamen of the allegations is relating to the cornering of the shares meant for the retail investors in the IPO of YES Bank. The above petition has been filed in January 2018 challenging the chargesheets which have been filed on 02/03/2009. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner endeavoured to demonstrate to us that there is no complicity of the Petitioner in the offences alleged. In our view, it is not possible to accept the said contention at this stage. 2. Having regard to the facts as aforestated, we do not deem it appropriate to exercise our ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 68(A) of the Companies Act, 1956 filed against the petitioner, in exercise of the extraordinary powers vested with this Hon'ble Court. (b) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this Petition, be pleased to stay further proceedings of CBI Spl. Case 48 of 2014 pending adjudication before the Ld. Sessions Court, Mumbai, in the interest of Justice;" ( Emphasis supplied ) 12. In the body of the Writ Petition dealing with the prayers in the earlier Writ Petition No. 406 of 2018, the following averment was made: "9. In pursuance to the said consent order passed by the SEBI, the Petitioner being aggrieved by the filing of Charge-sheet dated 02.03.2009 and 03.04.200 (sic.) and alleged commission of offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(l)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and under Section 68-A of the Companies Act, 1956 filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay being Criminal Writ Petition No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order : "39. For all the aforesaid reasons stated herein-above, in my studied view, the present are the fit cases in which the Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and as also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I, therefore, conclude that the continuation of the proceedings in Special CBI Case No. 47 of 2007 and Special CBI Case No. 48 of 2007 pending on the files of the Special Judge (CBI), Greater Mumbai, qua the Petitioner herein shall be an abuse of process of Court, therefore, the same is hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside in order to meet the ends of justice." 17. Mr. Alabhaya Dhamija, learned counsel for the CBI contends that ordinarily when the matter was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition afresh, the matter should have been placed before the Division Bench. According to the learned counsel, the respondent resorted to a clever device by deleting the prayers for quashment of FIR and charge-sheet and incorporated fresh prayers challenging the cognizance orders of 10.03.2008 and 19.03.2008, which two orders were not expressly challenged in the first round. According to the learned c....