TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The respondent No. 2 lodged the first information report with the respondent No.1 stating that the accused No.1 - Surana Power Limited, and the Promoter Director including the petitioner, who was one of the Promoter Directors, were involved in all the important decisions of the company, especially as the company was setting up the project. The total power project value was Rs. 2,400/- crore. The respondent No.2 indicated Rs.1,800/- crore in September, 2010 based collaterals. The promoter infused Rs. 350/- crore. PE Investor Sycamore Ventures, USA who agreed to bring Rs.300/- crore failed to infuse resulting in delay and halt. 3. The lenders (Banks) independent engineers were monitoring and reporting the project status to the lenders and according to their 10th monitoring report 58% of the project work was completed. Due to the delay, there was cost overrun and the respondent No.2 after securing further guarantee agreed to lend further sum of Rs.72.30 crore, however, did not disburse as the other consortium Bank failed to release their part of the amount. The project was stalled in November, 2013 due to the failure on the part of the private equities. 4. The company's acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e authority, which registered the impugned FIR, is the city of Bengaluru, which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In support, he places reliance on the following decisions: 1. S Ilanahai -vs- The State of Maharashtra - 2015 (1) MWN (Cr) 618. 2. Vihaan Direct Selling India Private Limited -vs- The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No.2576/2023. 3. Ashis Bhalla -vs- The State and another in Crl. M.C No.298/2023, Crl.M.A.No.12731/2023 & Crl. M.A No.21779 21780/2023 dated 15.09.2023. 4. CBI -vs- Susheel Suri - (2011) 5 SCC 708 at para 32. 5. Lalitha Kumari -vs- Government of Uttar Pradesh - (2014) 2 SCC 1, paras 89 to 92. b) The CBI manual and CBI Crime manual or administrative orders cannot take away or oust the jurisdiction of this Court. c) The Companies Act, 2013 is the complete special code in itself enumerating the procedures of investigation under Section 212 thereof, and therefore, the proceedings emanating under the Act, 2013 will take precedence over Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Penal Code. As such, when the allegations made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for want of authority. 12. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The points that arise for consideration are as follows: i) The offences alleged to have been committed within the State of Tamil Nadu, whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to examine the validity of the impugned FIR? ii) Whether the respondent - CBI is directed of its power to investigate the aforesaid offences in view of specific provision contained in Section *212 of the Companies Act, 2013? 14. Reg. Point No.(i): The petitioner is admittedly residing within the limits of the State of Tamil Nadu, and also the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is within the limits of the State of Tamil Nadu. The FIR is registered by the respondent - CBI having its office at Bengaluru, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 15. The issue as to whether the situs of the authority is the only criteria for the purpose of quashing the FIR in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr. PC, and not the place of commission of crime either in full or in part was examined by the High Court of Madras in the case of Ilanahai ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ud is punishable with imprisonment enumerated therein. The allegations made against the petitioner even accepting on the face of it tantamount to petitioner committing fraud as defined in Explanation (i) to Section 447 of Companies Act, 2013. 20. Section 212 of the Act, 2013 deals with investigation into affairs of a company by a serious fraud Investigating Officer. 21. The issue as to the competency of the serious fraud Investigating officer to investigate the offence under Section 437 of the Act, 2013 was examined by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. P No. 3550/2017. The coordinate Bench ruled that Sub-Section 6 of Section 212 of the Act, 2013 deals with the offences covered under Section 447 of the Act and makes it clear that no Court shall take cognizance unless the complaint is made by the Director, SFIO or the officer of the Central Government authorized by a general or special order in writing in this behalf by that Government. Thus, an offence under Section 447 is given special treatment in terms of Sub-Section 6 of Section 212 of the Act, 2013. It is only that procedure which is prescribed under Sub-Section 6 of Section 212 which would apply, and the shareho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der dated 16.1.2024. 26. The learned counsel for the CBI has placed on record the decision of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of Thomas Cherian and others -vs- State of Kerala and others. In the said case, the primary question that arose for consideration was whether the interpretation of the term fraud as defined under Section 447 of the Act, 2013 can be extended to include the act admittedly committed prior to the enactment of the Act, 2013. It was ruled that the offences, which are now being investigated by the police, are in relation to the offences under the IPC, and therefore, would not come under the offences referred to in Sub-Section 6 of Section 212 of the Act, 2013. Although, the offences alleged against the accused therein have some relation to the affairs of the said company, that would not take away the right of a private individual to resort to criminal prosecution for the offences contemplated under the IPC in the absence of a specific provision in this regard. Moreover, the offences were allegedly committed prior to the commencement of the Act, 2013. 27. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are during the period 2009....