Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 21,000 costs on MLC CP Yogeshwar and others for repeatedly seeking same relief

The Karnataka High Court recently imposed costs of Rs. 21,000 on BJP lawmaker and former Minister CP Yogeshwar and others for repeatedly approaching the Court seeking similar reliefs (CP Yogeshwara v. SFIO)..The Bench of Justice John Michael Cunha took a dim view of the multifarious proceedings initiated by Yogeshwar, a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Council and other seeking quashing of criminal cases registered against them for cheating, forgery, and other offences..While dismissing seven petitions filed by Yogeshwar, his brother CP Gangadhareshwar and six others, the Court stated,."Having regard to the conduct of the petitioners in repeatedly approaching this Court, seeking the very same relief, in multifarious proceedings, the petitioners are required to mulcted with exemplary cost. Hence, the petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) in each petition.".The charges against Yogeshwar and others stemmed from an alleged scam related to Megacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders, of which Yogeshwar is Managing Director..The Court was dealing with seven criminal petitions filed by the MLC, his family members and other directors of the firm, seeking to quash the orders of the special court and magistrate court, which had rejected their pleas against proceedings by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)..The impugned orders pertained to the cognizance and issuance of summons to the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 240(3) of the Companies Act, 1956..The SFIO had alleged that Yogeshwar allegedly committed an offence by obtaining multiple Director Identification Numbers by producing forged documents to overcome disqualification from being director of a firm, besides allegedly siphoning off crores of rupees by cheating investors..Before the High Court, counsel for Yogeshwar argued that the impugned orders are bad in law inasmuch as the complaints presented by the SFIO do not disclose material to take cognizance. .Counsel for SFIO submitted that the petitions are barred by time as the petitioners were required to approach the High Court within 90 days from the date of the impugned orders..It was further argued that the petitioners had earlier challenged the very same orders before the High Court by filing six criminal petitions. All these matters were directed to be listed before the I ACMM, Bangalore. Therefore, it was submitted that the instant petitions amounted to abuse of the process of the court..After a careful analysis of the rival arguments, the Bench observed that the petitioners had filed petitions in 2012 challenging the orders passed by the special court and the same prayers were made by them in petitions filed in 2017..Further, after going through the relevant documents, the Court observed that the petitioners had earlier sought quashing of the instant proceedings, and had given them up as they had continued to participate in the proceedings before the trial court. However, after a lapse five years, they have challenged the very same orders again, the Court said. .The Court further opined that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclosed the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners..On these grounds, the Court dismissed the seven petitions and proceeded to impose costs on the petitioners..[Read order]