Page 59 - History of Canopy Classic Buyers

Crl.Misc.3834/2018
5

and for some of the aspirants it was understood to be in July
2014 and that there is inconsistency committed in the approach

of the company in delivery of f ats. It is alleged that some f ats

are yet to be delivered and also that some part of construction
work of the project is not complete. It is alleged that due to the

present position, the company has committed fraud and

deceived the public at large and that the site of ice is not in
operation. It is alleged that both the directors of the company

incorporated a company named “Interstellar Smart Housing

Private Limited” in the month of March 2017, which is so made
in order to generate funds to complete the project by including

foreign investments in the project. It is stated in the complaint
that the petitioners have maintained the original of ice address

and e-mail ID as that of the company ID. Even now the

petitioners and other lady directors' phones are switched of for
communication.

8) The learned Special Public Prosecutor has

contended that there is a bar under Section 18(2) of KPIDFE

Act, 2004 for entertaining a petition u/Section 438 of Cr.P.C., by
the Special Court, as one of the of ence alleged against the

petitioner is Section 9 of KPIDFE Act. The learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners has contended that the said bar
contained in Section 18(2) is applicable to the proceedings

before the Special Court and the petitioners have invoked the

jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail.
This court is having jurisdiction both of the Special Court as

well as the Sessions Court. On looking to the cause title of the
petition, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this

court as the Sessions Court. Therefore, on that ground the

http://canopyclassicbuyers.in/ Page 59 of 101