'Abuse Of Process' : Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Criminal Action Against Azim Premji Under RBI Act

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a not for profit company named "India Awake for Transparency", challenging an order of the magistrate court dismissing its private complaint seeking directions to Reserve Bank of India to register a case against Wipro founder Azim Premji and others under the Reserve Bank of India Act. A single bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj while dismissing the petition said: "I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition filed is an abuse of process of law and of this court, the same is not maintainable. The grievance of the petitioner has already been addressed by RBI by its order dated 5.09.2017 passed. If at all the petitioner has any grievance as regards the said order, the petitioner is required to take adequate and necessary steps not by filing of proceedings by way of a private complaint before the Magistrate or by way of writ petition before this Court." The petitioner had challenged the order dated July 28, 2020, by which the private complaint filed by it was dismissed. In its complaint It was alleged that the RBI Act was amended with effect from 9.1.1997 to strengthen the role of RBI in supervising Non Banking Finance companies (NBFC). Section 45 IA of the RBI Act made it mandatory for all the NBFC to obtain registration from RBI in the event of the business being conducted without such registration, such an entity could be prosecuted under Section 58B(4A). The complainant alleged that respondents being directors of various companies were carrying on non-banking financial business in the said companies without registration and as such had committed offences under Section 45IA of the RBI Act and as such they were to be prosecuted. The magistrate court dismissed the private complaint holding that the representation earlier submitted by the petitioner was still pending with the Governor of the RBI for consideration. The status of said representation was not known. In the absence thereof, the Court was of the opinion that no direction can be issued to the Governor of the RBI. Senior Advocate S Ganesh, instructed by Advocate Sandeep Huligol appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition. It was submitted that "The above writ petition is not tenable, that the issue raised in the private complaint has already been decided by the Delhi High Court in W.P.No.4905/2017. Moreover, the petitioner having filed PIL before this Court and having withdrawn the same unconditionally without reserving any liberty, the present writ petition is not maintainable and as such, the writ petition is to be dismissed." It was also pointed that the petitioner had also filed a PIL in W.P.No.3635/2020 before the High Court whereunder the Governor of RBI and various other entities had been arrayed as parties and that in the said matter also allegations were made as regards violation of RBI Act, more particularly relating to registration of the NBFC. The said PIL having been heard by the Division Bench of this Court, upon the Division Bench of this court not being convinced with the said matter, the petitioner after addressing arguments in the matter sought for withdrawal of the same during the proceedings on 1.10.2020 and as such, the petition was disposed of as unconditionally withdrawn. It was contended that once the proceeding had been filed making allegations before this Court as a PIL or otherwise and the same had been withdrawn, the filing of the present writ petition is barred by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Sarguja Transport Service –v- State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others [1987(1) SCC 5]. Senior advocate R.V.S. Naik, instructed by Advocate V.V.Giri, for respondent No.1 (RBI), submitted that "The claim of the petitioner is hit by the principles of res judicata inasmuch as the RBI vide its order dated 5.9.2017 has rejected the claims of the petitioner. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, the petitioner ought to have challenged the order dated 5.9.2017. Same not having been challenged, a private complaint could not have been filed by the petitioner. Further, it was said that "The said order of the RBI having been made in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has an effect of res judicata, the petitioner cannot once again reagitate the same except by way of an appeal" AdvocateR.Subraminian,appearing for the petitioner submitted that proceedings which had been filed before the Delhi High Court were different from that which had been filed before the Magistrate. Before the Delhi High Court, the relief which had been sought for was for a mandamus to decide on the representations given by the petitioner, whereas the proceedings in PCR had been filed to register a complaint against respondents. Moreover, the letter dated 5.9.2017 of RBI cannot be said to be an order...

'Abuse Of Process' : Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Criminal Action Against Azim Premji Under RBI Act

Mustafa Plumber

Tags