Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has refused to stall the investigation against Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt Ltd and its directors over complaints filed by homebuyers, as well as proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.Justice M Nagaprasanna, in a detailed order passed on Sept 21, said the allegations against the company concerned financial transactions of considerable magnitude, including alleged diversion and siphoning of funds and their use for purposes other than those for which they were collected.“What cannot escape consideration is the nature and magnitude of the allegations against the petitioners,” the judge observed, noting that the alleged offences weren’t ordinary crimes confined to an individual complainant or an isolated transaction. They had the features of economic offences affecting several stakeholders, “most significantly, scores of homebuyers”.The judge said economic offences were distinct from conventional crimes because their consequences often extended beyond an identifiable victim. Alleged diversion of money collected from homebuyers could affect public confidence in commercial and financial arrangements, he added.“For a homebuyer, the transaction is seldom a mere investment in brick and mortar; it is frequently the culmination of years of savings, coupled with the continuing burden of a loan,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.The company, its chairperson and directors, including the managing director, had sought the quashing of FIRs registered by Devanahalli police and the money-laundering proceedings initiated by ED. The petitioners argued that the disputes were contractual in nature and that homebuyers had alternative remedies, making the issues essentially civil in nature. Regarding the ED proceedings, they contended that these amounted to double jeopardy, since proceedings had already been initiated on complaints by homebuyers arising from the same set of facts.Justice Nagaprasanna, however, rejected these contentions after examining the material on record and declined to interfere with the investigations and proceedings.The judge, however, quashed proceedings against the company’s chairperson, managing director and CEO in relation to a private complaint filed by Padmanabha, proprietor of an earth-moving works company engaged by the petitioners. The complaint concerned non-payment of dues.
