SATINDER SINGH BHASIN versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. on 6 November 2019

O R D E R

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of the prayer for interimreliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d) of this writ petition. Interms of prayer clause (c), the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail inrespect of FIRs mentioned therein registered at Police Station Kasna,Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh and Police Station G

H

Economic Offences Wing and at Parliament Street, New Delhi and allother FIRs that have been lodged against the petitioner in the State ofUttar Pradesh and State of NCT of Delhi but are not within the knowledgeof the petitioner and any other FIRs that come to the knowledge of thisCourt or the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. In termsof prayer clause (d), the petitioner has sought relief of stay of proceedingsemanating from the concerned FIRs mentioned therein registered atPolice Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradeshand FIR registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing and atParliament Street, New Delhi and all other FIRs that have been lodgedagainst the petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of NCT ofDelhi but are not within the knowledge of the petitioner and any otherFIRs that come to the knowledge of this Court or the petitioner duringthe pendency of the writ petition.

2. The substantive relief claimed in the writ petition, by invokingArticle 32 of the Constitution of India for violation of fundamental rightsof the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution ofIndia, is to issue mandamus directing CBI to take over investigation ofall the FIRs registered against the petitioner in the State of UP and theState of NCT of Delhi respectively in connection with the project by thename “Grand Venice” in the National Capital Region in particular Malland a Commercial Tower thereof and in respect of which by separateagreements, the company of which the petitioner is the Director, hadagreed to sell units in the stated Mall and Commercial Tower as thecase may be, to the concerned party. In the alternative, it is prayed thatthe FIRs filed against the petitioner at different points of time in theState of UP or the State of NCT of Delhi be consolidated and theinvestigation be entrusted to one agency so that criminal action againstthe petitioner can proceed at one place.

3. As regards transfer of investigation of all the FIRs to the CBI,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 consolidateall FIRs, prima facie, in our opinion, do not merit consideration. However,the second part of the alternative relief may require deeper considerationin light of the submissions made across the Bar by both the parties andthe learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of NCT ofDelhi. Prima facie, the decision pressed into service to oppose even ABC

DEF

G

Athat relief in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr. vs. Union ofIndia & Ors.[1] does not completely rule out the possibility of entrustingthe investigation of all the FIRs to one agency in one State by transfer ofFIRs and investigation thereof from one State to another State. Thatappears to be a debatable issue. Our attention has also been drawn toanother three-Judge Bench decision in the State of Punjab & Anr. vs.BRajesh Syal[2]. As aforesaid, the second part of the alternative substantiveprayer being a debatable issue, can be considered at the appropriatestage.

4. Reverting to the interim relief claimed especially in terms ofprayer clause (c), the same reads, thus :-C“Grant bail to the Petitioner herein in FIR No.140/2019, FIRNo.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, FIRNo.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,DFIR No.258/2019, FIR No.251/2019, 272/2019 all at P.S. Kasna,Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh; all other FIRsthat have been lodged against the Petitioner but are not within theknowledge of the Petitioner and any other FIRs that come to theknowledge of this Hon’ble Court or the Petitioner during thependency of this Writ Petition; subject to such conditions as thisEHon’ble Court may deem fit and proper irrespective of any ordermade or proceedings or applications pending in any of the courtsother than this Hon’ble Court.”

5. It is noticed from the pleadings and the affidavits filed on record,that the petitioner’s application for grant of bail in respect of 17 FIRsFregistered at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida,Uttar Pradesh have already been rejected by the concerned Court. Thoseorders have not been assailed. But in the writ petition, it is urged thatinstead of asking the petitioner to file separate bail applications, this courtin exercise of its writ jurisdiction, may entertain a common prayer in thatGregard and grant bail to the petitioner as recently granted in similarsituation by another Bench of this Court in Surinder Singh Alagh vs.Union of India & Ors.[3].

1 (2002) 2 SCC 210

2 (2002) 8 SCC 1583 Writ Petition (Criminal) No.196 of 2019 and connected matters (Order datedH02.08.2019)

6. It is noticed from the affidavit filed on behalf of the State ofUttar Pradesh that in all the 17 cases where bail applications have beenrejected, and, in another case, where the bail application is pending beforethe concerned Court, charge sheets have already been filed in theconcerned Court. It is also noticed that out of 37 cases registered atPolice Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater NOIDA, UttarPradesh, the petitioner has been granted bail in 11 cases and eight casesare still under investigation. Similarly, five FIRs are registered in theState of NCT of Delhi-three at Police Station Parliament Street and twowith the Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi. In those FIRs thepetitioner has been granted bail in three cases by the concerned Court.

7. It is also noticed from the allegations in all the separate FIRsfiled before the concerned Police Stations that the same are virtuallysimilar if not identical or stereo type; and essentially making grievanceabout the non-delivery of possession of the units to the concernedcomplainant/allottee(s) including the assured lease rental/assured returnsin respect of the concerned units. The other common aspects in theseparate FIRs is about the non-completion of the project as assured andabout siphoning of funds raised for the completion of project in question.The common allegation is also about the legality or impropriety in allotmentof land to the company by the officials of Uttar Pradesh State IndustrialDevelopment Corporation (UPSIDC). The latter allegation, however, iscommon only in the FIRs registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh.Notably, the investigation of FIRs registered at Police Station Kasna hasbeen entrusted to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by theState of Uttar Pradesh. To that extent, all the 37 FIRs registered in theState of Uttar Pradesh are being investigated by one agency and thatagency has filed charge sheet(s) in almost 28 cases thus far.

8. We have also noticed that out of five cases registered in theState of NCT of Delhi, with similar allegations, 72 out of 91 informantsin the Kasna FIRs are also informants in the FIRs registered with theEconomic Offences Wing at Delhi. Indeed, the common informants haveoffered explanation as to the circumstances in which they became party/complainant in the FIRs registered at Kasna Police Station. For the timebeing, it is not necessary for us to examine that controversy.

9. It is also relevant to mention that bail granted by the Court ofcompetent jurisdiction at Delhi (CMM/ND/Patiala House Court) hasimposed onerous conditions to be observed by the petitioner, as noticed AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afrom the order dated 15[th] May, 2019. It is a different matter that thepetitioner has not been able to avail of any of the bail and is in custodysince 12[th] February, 2019 because of the successive FIRs registered atdifferent places and custody warrants issued at the instance of differentpolice stations from time to time.

B10. The petitioner, on the other hand, would contend that theallegation that the project, in particular, Mall and Commercial Tower inrespect of which the stated FIRs have been registered being incomplete,is not correct. For, the UPSIDC has already issued completion certificateon 16[th] April, 2015 as well as the occupancy certificate on 3[rd] March,2017 with retrospective date of issuance of completion certificate inCrespect of the Mall and Commercial Tower portion, i.e., the entire projectexcept the hotel portion. The FIRs referred to in the writ petition inprayer clause (c) are limited to the units in Mall and Commercial Towerof the project in respect of which occupancy certificate has been obtained.The petitioner asserts that the petitioner has handed over possession toD77 allottees in the Mall and 245 allottees in the Commercial Tower. TheMall and the Commercial Tower are fully functional and have beenoccupied by the brands such as Cine Appeals, Big Bazar, Burger King,H&M etc. The case of the petitioner is that the allottees who haverushed to register FIRs are unwilling to take possession of their unit(s)and are refusing to make payment of the balance consideration amount.EIn other words, the allottees are not discharging their part of thecontractual obligation. Whereas, the petitioner and the company are facingmultiple proceedings including before Company Judge [High Court/National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)] and also before the concernedforum under Consumer Protection Act for the same subject matter.F11. It is not necessary for us to examine the correctness of the F11. It is not necessary for us to examine the correctness of theallegations made against the petitioner or the response filed by thepetitioner thereto. Suffice it to observe that the project is situated in theNational Capital Region and within the territorial jurisdiction of KasnaPolice Station (State of Uttar Pradesh). Majority of the cases areregistered with the said police station and the concerned police station isGinviting further complaints from similarly placed aggrieved persons as aresult of which new cases are being registered and investigated by theU.P. State constituted SIT. The SIT of the State of Uttar Pradesh isinvestigating into a new angle which had cropped up during the courseof investigation, about the possibility of collusive and collaborative actsH

of commission and omission of the officials of the UPSIDC. All this isbeing investigated by the SIT constituted by the State of Uttar Pradeshwhich, 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 inclinedto grant interim relief claimed by the petitioner to release him on baildirectly by this Court in connection with all the FIRs mentioned in prayerclause (c) and other FIRs that have been or likely to be registered againstthe petitioner in connection with the project, namely, “Grand Venice”, inparticular, Mall and Commercial Tower thereof, at Police Station Kasna,Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh or any other PoliceStation within the territory of the State of Uttar Pradesh and, in thesame manner, the FIRs registered at the Police Stations in the State ofNCT of Delhi at Police Station Parliament Street and by the EconomicOffences Wing New Delhi or otherwise.

13. As regards, interim relief of stay of proceedings against thepetitioner emanating from the FIRs mentioned in prayer clause (d), thatrelief can be considered only in respect of FIRs registered in the Stateof NCT of Delhi, be it with the Economic Offences Wing or PoliceStation Parliament Street, New Delhi. The question of granting stay ofproceedings pending against the petitioner in connection with the FIRsregistered at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida,Uttar Pradesh does not arise as the same are being investigated by oneinvestigating agency, namely, the SIT constituted by the State of UttarPradesh. In case any FIR is already registered within the State of UttarPradesh in Police Station other than Police Station Kasna, we have nomanner of doubt that the SIT will take necessary steps to take over theinvestigation of all such FIRs registered within the State of Uttar Pradesh.

14. Be it noted that we are inclined to stay further proceedingsonly arising from the FIRs registered at New Delhi because thesubstratum of the allegations in the FIRs filed at Delhi are similar and,more so, as aforementioned, 72 complainants are common at both theplaces. We may, however, permit the remaining informants/complainantsin FIRs registered at New Delhi to register their complaint with thePolice Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradeshif so advised, which can also be investigated by the SIT constituted bythe State of Uttar Pradesh.

15. We are conscious of the fact that out of five cases registeredwithin the State of NCT of Delhi brought to the notice of this Court, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acharge sheet has been filed in one of the FIRs. However, until the entireissue is debated and considered by this Court, to meet the ends of justice,it would be expedient to stay the further proceedings in connection withall the FIRs registered or to be registered hereinafter in the State ofNCT of Delhi.

B16. In view of the above, we dispose of the prayers for interimrelief, in terms of the prayer clauses (c) and (d) of the writ petition onthe following basis :-

A. The petitioner is granted bail in respect of all the FIRs referredto in prayer clause (c) in respect of the project by name “GrandVenice” in NCR, in particular, Mall and Commercial Tower thereof,Con the following conditions: -

(i) That the petitioner shall not commit any offence of similartype of which he has been accused.

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make anyDinducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted withthe facts of the case so as to denude such person fromdisclosing such facts to any Police Station or tamper with theevidence.

(iii) The petitioner shall join further investigation as and whencalled upon to do so by the Investigating Officer or by the SITEconstituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

(iv) The petitioner shall deposit his passport with the Registryof this Court within a period of two weeks from today. If it iswith the Police Station at Kasna or any Police Station in theState of NCT of Delhi, the concerned Police Station shall causeFto deposit petitioner’s passport in the Registry of this Courtwithin the same time.

(v) The petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officernominated by SIT, constituted by the State of Uttar Pradeshon every Monday between 11 A.M. to 12 Noon and shall alsoGappear before the concerned Court as and when called uponto do so.

(vi) The petitioner shall deposit an aggregate amount ofRs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifty crore only) before the Registryof this Court as a pre-condition for grant of bail. On deposit of H

such amount, authenticated copy of the receipt issued by thisCourt be produced before the concerned Court/InvestigatingOfficer. The amount so deposited by the petitioner in theRegistry, be invested in an appropriate interest bearing depositscheme in a nationalized bank until further orders including torenew the deposit from time to time.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish personal bail bond ofRs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lac only) with one surety in the likeamount in connection with each FIR independently.

(viii) After being released on bail in terms of this order, thepetitioner shall make every possible attempt to settle the claimsof the concerned complainant(s)/informant(s) as far as possiblewithin six to eight months as ordered by the Court of the ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts while granting bailto the petitioner in FIR No.38/2018 registered with theEconomic Offences Wing, New Delhi vide order dated 15[th]May, 2019.

(ix) If the petitioner fails to abide by any of the above conditionsintentionally and if it is so established before this Court, no lessthan 50% of the amount deposited by him in this Court in termsof this order [Clause (vi) above] shall stand forfeited.

(x) The petitioner shall extend full cooperation to the concernedCourt as and when necessary for early disposal of the cases.

B. All further proceedings emanating from FIRs registered atPolice Station Parliament Street, New Delhi or Economic OffenceWing, New Delhi or any other FIR already lodged or to be lodgedhereafter in State of NCT of Delhi against the petitioner inconnection with the project named “Grand Venice”, in particular,units in Mall and Commercial Tower thereof, shall remain stayeduntil further orders.

17. Let the writ petition be notified for further hearing on 15[th]January, 2020. All concerned shall file reply affidavits/rejoinder affidavitsin the main writ petition, in the meantime if so advised.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Prayer for interim relief disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H