S.BHASKARAN & ANR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A H Bhagavan and learned counsel for respondent no.2 Sri Amar Correa.

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.580/2016 which is pending on the file of 1st respondent - Subramanyapura Police,

on the basis of the compliant lodged by the 2nd respondent Sri Prashanth Heggade. The 2nd respondent has lodged a complaint making

allegations against the petitioners and others with regard to theft of materials and misappropriation, pursuant to collusion between the petitioners

and their employees in collusion with the security agency, concurrent auditor and bank executives. It is the specific allegation that the 2nd

respondent is a Company having been funded by consortium of banks comprising State Bank of India and other banks. The State Bank of India

was informed about the fraud in taking away the properties of 2nd respondent involving their employees and some executives of the bank. It is

admitted in the FIR that, the banks have taken action invoking SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, it is an admitted fact, during the course of

arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the State Bank of India has not taken the actual possession of any unit or the company''s

assets as such, but they have only taken symbolic possession of the properties. However, it is alleged by the 2nd respondent that physical

possession and administrative control of the factories of 2nd respondent were taken over by the State Bank of India and all the affairs of all the

three factories of the 2nd respondent at different places were also taken over by the 2nd respondent and in fact, they have appointed their security

for the purpose of guarding the factories. It is the specific allegation that, though the SARFAESI Act has been invoked, banks have not adhered to

the meticulous following of the procedure under SARFAESI Act. On the other hand, it is alleged that by means of collusion between the

executives of the bank and some persons of the Company of the respondent and active conspiracy of the security guards, it is alleged that the

properties which were there in the factories of the 2nd respondent have been removed and thereby, all the officers of the bank, security guards and

other persons who were involved of having committed theft of the properties in the factories are also removed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends before this Court that there is no specific allegation made implicating the bank officers as

such, to show the conspiracy between their security guards and other executives of the bank and the Company of the 2nd respondent. There is no

specific allegations that, petitioners have actually committed theft of any articles from the factory of the 2nd respondent.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Sri.Amar Correa submits that the collusion which is alleged in the compliant has to be unearthed

during the course of investigation. However, added to that, there is specific allegation that the bank has taken over the possession of the factories

and they have appointed the securities and it is at their instructions the properties were removed. Therefore, the conspiracy between the parties

have to be ascertained after a detailed investigation is done.

It is also the case of the petitioners that, the petitioner banks have also filed a complaint against the respondent before the CBI and the CBI have

also registered a case and they are also investigating the matter. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that there are cases and counter cases filed

between the parties with regard to the same dispute pertaining to the assets and properties in the factories of the Company pertaining to the 2nd

respondent. It is also submitted by the learned HCGP that there are many number of cases like this and all the matters have been referred to CID

and CID Police have almost investigated the matter and the investigation is at the fag end. He further submits that within one month, CID would file

their final report before the Court.

Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the allegations and the counter allegations are being investigated by different investigating

agencies. From September ''17, after filing of this petition, what is the investigation that has already been done either by the CBI or by the CID, is

not made known to this Court. What materials they have collected, what is the truth or falsity of the allegation which have been unearthed, has not

been brought before this Court. Therefore, when the facts are hazy and the Court cannot conclusively draw any inference with regard to the

complexity in the crime or otherwise, of the petitioners herein, it may not be proper for the Court to quash the FIR itself as much water must have

been already flown from the date of filing of the petition till today. It may be possible to pass an order directing the petitioners to approach this

Court only if the police implicate them or after they file any report without there being any basis.

Under the above said circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the opinion, petition is liable

to be dismissed at this stage providing opportunity to the jurisdictional police to file appropriate report within one month from the date of receipt of

a copy of this order as submitted by the learned HCGP before the Court. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any such report by the police and if

any cognizance is taken against the petitioners, they are at liberty to question the said orders, if the same is adverse to them and without any basis.

With these observations, petition is dismissed.