AGRIGOLD FARM ESTATES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is directed to take notice for the State.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order. The petitioner is the same in these four petitions. It is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in the name and style of Agrigold Farm Estates India Limited. It was said to have been converted into a private limited company under a fresh Certificate of Incorporation dated 30.11.2002. It is said to be engaged in the business of real estate which has several branch officers designated as business centres. In Karnataka alone there are a total of 57 branches employing about 250 employees. The petitioner has a scheme under which its customers can purchase plots on installment basis. On the completion of the payment of the entire cost the plot would be registered in the name of the customer and other formalities such as registration would take place. It is claimed that the customer was to remit the expenses of stamp duty, registration and other charges apart from complying with other formalities of producing details of their identity and address proof etc., If there was default in payment of the price the transaction would be cancelled and an agreed percentage of the amount would be deducted from the amount paid and the balance would be refunded. It is claimed that in order to maintain cordial relationships and to overcome practical difficulties when the customer defaults not willfully, but on account of unavoidable circumstances, there were instances where the company has considered the refund of full advance paid and wherever the customer had applied for cancellation of the transaction, at the earliest point of time. This business has been carried on by the petitioner for over 14 years and is said to have built a reputation in the market in several thousand developed plots having been sold in course of time. It is stated that the petitioner company has so marketed farm land plots and other properties not only in Karnataka, but in many other states and even in the Andaman and Nicobar islands. The petitioner claims to carry on business in Karnataka through one of its associates, M/s. Agrigold Construction Private Limited. It now transpires that the petitioner Company has become a victim in an internecine competition in political rivalry. In that, during the period August, 2013 until May, 2014, due to various agitations and bandhs in connection with the issue of bifurcation of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and upto December, 2014 in view of the uncertainty as to where the state capital of the new State would be situated, there were cancellations of transactions or request for change of plots from Telangana to Andhra region, or vice versa, which completely dislocated the business activities of the petitioner. It is in that background that a First Information Report in C.C. No.6/2015 came to be registered against the officials of the petitioner Company and subsequently as on 10.01.2015 by the Udupi town police for the alleged offences of cheating etc., Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act with Rules, 2004 which was incorporated later in the First Information Report. However, there were a spate of further complaints which according to the petitioner had been challenged before this Court and this Court had disposed of the petitions stating that the subsequent complaints or the FIR would be treated as additional statements of the complainants under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for brevity) or under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The additional complaints, FIRs which were lodged in Crime No.43/2015 registered by the Doddaballapur Town police station, Crime No.92/2015 registered by the Sampangiramanagar police. It also transpires that there was Crime No.77/2015 of the Tilak Park police station. Further the CID of Andhra Pradesh in Crime No.3/2015 of the Pedapadu police station of West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh stood transferred to the CID of Andhra Pradesh. The Chairman, Managing Director of the petitioner company was arrested and produced before the Special Court and the District and Sessions Judge Court, Eluru, West Godavari District on 12.02.2016 and he was kept in police custody for seven days. Similarly other top officials were arrested and produced before the court. There were 4 cases against the company in Karnataka namely Crime No.6/2015 in Udupi Police Station, Crime No.43/2015 in Doddaballapur police station, Crime No. 92/2015 in Sampangiramnagar police station and Crime No. 77/2015 of Tilak Park police station, Tumakuru.

4. It is stated that in respect of these offences the matters stood transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department and it was held that any further complaints in respect of similar transactions involving the petitioner company would be treated as additional statements under Section 162 Cr.P.C. and a single criminal case could be tried against the petitioner in respect of the several transactions which are identical and by the same petitioner with different third parties. It is in this background that the petitioner has learnt of a case registered in Kundapura police station against the petitioner and its officials alleging the same modus operendi inspite of which it is alleged that under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed apart from other provisions of law and in view of earlier orders of this court in similar circumstances. The present petitions are filed seeking that all these cases be tried by one court at Udupi. Similarly there is a FIR registered in Crime No.409/2015 at Kundapura, 426/2015 of Yelahanka, 53/2015 and Crime No.136/2015 of Bhadravathi Rural Police.

5. It is laid down by mor than one order of this Court namely in Crl.P.No.201108/2014 which is the basis for the Government of Karnataka, Director General, Inspector General of Police having issued a circular dated 30.07.2015 as to the procedure to be followed in such instances where a large number of cases are filed against a single accused alleging the same modus operendi in respect of transactions which are identical in nature that they should be tried before the same court dated 5.3.2015 and also in Crl.P.No.1784/2016 dated 5.4.2016 and Crl.P.1783/2016 dated 5.4.2016.

6. In that, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in T T Antony vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181; Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384 in the case of Anju Chaudhary vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; also in the case of Ningappa Parasappa Pujari and others vs. The State of Karnataka 2012 (3) KCCR 1734 that an Investigating Officer when he receives the first information report with regard to the commission of cognizable offences, he has to start the investigation into the matter. Any subsequent information that he receives with regard to any similar incident or with regard to any incident arising out of the same transaction, he shall not register further crime numbers but he shall treat that information as the statement of the witnesses either under Section 162 Cr.P.C. or Section 161 Cr.P.C. He shall be empowered to seize any property, record the statement of any of the witnesses or arrest any accused persons whose names surfaced subsequently by examining the witnesses who are connected with such cases and would have to ensure that the transactions though distinct and having taken place at different places at different times, considering the totality of circumstances if it discloses and if it answers the test of sameness then it is not necessary to register many cases and it could be tried as one case. In other words, if several offences though committed at different times at different places and if they are part of the same transaction involving the same accused or one similar transactions and if there is commonality of the allegations whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction would have to be gathered from the conspectus of the entire gamut of the case in the hands of the Investigating Officer. The circumstances indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action, commonality of purpose or design, play a very dominant role in considering whether it is one process or a series of transactions committed in a similar fashion by the same accused could be registered as one case. Therefore, from the factual matrix of these cases which are alleged in each of these petitions being of an identical nature against the same accused petitioner, it could be conveniently tried before the same court. The risk of any inconsistent findings is taken away and it would also be convenient for the evidence to be collated and consistently considered one way or the other to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused. Consequently, these petitions are allowed. The several crime numbers in respect of which the same are filed shall stand transferred as additional statements under Section 162 or Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and shall be tried alongwith Crime No.6/2015 pending on the file of Principal District Judge, Udupi. The petitions are accordingly disposed of.

7. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks. Sd/- JUDGE