9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, it was mentioned that the accused persons i.e., Suryakanth Tiwari, his brother Rajanikanth Tiwari, his associates Hemanth Jaiswal and others were conspiring and parallely collecting illegal levy on coal and Suryakanth Tiwari has admitted in his statement about the collection of illegal levy. Though the learned senior counsel has rightly contended that the Kadugodi police at Bengaluru may not investigate the offence under Section 384 of IPC which is said to be committed at Chhattisgarh State and the Karnataka police can investigate only in respect of the offence under Sections 353, 186 and 204 of IPC, however, the Section 120B has been inserted by the police, where there was allegation of conspiracy between the Suryakanth Tiwari and other accused in collecting illegal levy on coal mining. That apart, destroying the electronic evidence is pertaining to the information found in the mobile phone, in respect of the offence committed at Chhattisgarh under Section 384 of IPC. Even otherwise, merely a provision of any Section of IPC has been left out in the FIR or in the complaint, that itself does not mean the police should not investigate the matter. They are very much having pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed along with accused Suryakanth Tiwari and others for involving in the money laundering case. In this aspect, when the Suryakanth Tiwari was accused in predicate offence and when money laundering case has been registered against him and this petitioner was arrested in the money laundering case as co-accused, therefore, he has to challenge the same before the Special Court at Chhattisgarh or before the High court of Chhattisgarh against registering of case by the ED by taking the offence committed at Bengaluru as predicate offence. Thus, when the petitioner is not an accused in crime No.120/2022 and his name was neither found in the FIR or the first information statement or in the request made by the police for investigating the offence under Section 384 of IPC, this petitioner cannot question the same. If the ED consider the Crime No. 129/2022 as a predicate offence and Section 384 of IPC has schedule offence for initiating any proceedings it has to be challenged before the Chhattisgarh State where this petitioner is an accused. Therefore, the petition filed by this petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Petition dismissed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 21944 OF 2022 (GM-RES) - - - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the investigation being carried out by the Bengaluru Kadugodi Police in Crime No.129/2022, which is under challenge. 4. The learned senior counsel P.Chidambaram appeared for the petitioner and contended that the case was registered against the Suryakanth Tiwari at Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 204, 353 of IPC and absolutely there is no averments made against this petitioner for having conspired with the accused Suryakanth Tiwari. After the search conducted by the IT officials, they have taken Suryakanth Tiwari to Chhattisgarh where they said to have manhandled him. Hence, he has lodged complaint to the Civil Line Police Station, Raipur and based upon the offence committed at Bengaluru on the IT officials in Crime No.129/2022 which has been considered as predicate offence for registering the case by the ED against this petitioner and when the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC said to have occurred at Chhattisgarh, it is the Chhattisgarh police who shall register FIR and investigate matter against this petitioner, the Karnataka Police have not authority to investigate the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC against this petitioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 ILR 2007 (4) Kerala 154; Shoit Khosla and Anr -V - State of Punjab - CRM-M No. 16890/2020 (O M); State of West Bengal Vs Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors in (1982 1 SCC 561); State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal and Ors 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 RP Kapur Vs State of Punjab in AIR 1960 SC 866. 7. Per contra, the learned SPP II appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 objected the petition mainly on three grounds (a) That this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is neither accused in the FIR nor in the remand application. (b) There is no case registered against him and the Karnataka police have not investigated the matter against this petitioner. (c) When he is not the accused in Crime No. 129/2022 of Kadugodi police station and he has no right to challenge either FIR or investigation, hence prayed for dismissing the petition. The learned SPP II also contended that though the averments made in the complaint about the illegal demand and extortion of money by the accused/Suryakanth Tiwari in the First Information, but the police while registering the case, they left out Section 384 of IPC and therefore the police filed a requisition before the ACJM Court and obtained permissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in his house and he has admitted in the enquiry conducted by the officials that Suryakanth Tiwari used to keep money in the house of this petitioner and this petitioner also admitted that he received money from Suryakanth Tiwari and kept in his house. The ED officials seized the cash and gold ornaments, both petitioner and accused were involved in money laundering offence. The accused No.1 used to extort Rs.25 per tonne from the purchaser who purchased the coal, from the mining. The officials of the Mining Department are also involved and they have been arrested. The investigation is under progress, there are ample materials available for having connection between this petitioner and Surykanth Tiwari and this petitioner was in possession of Rs.6.44 crores hard cash from the house, apart form jewellery worth Rs.3.24 crores. The offence under Section 384 of IPC is a scheduled offence for registering PMLA case by ED authorities and Rs.1.5 crores has been seized from this petitioner when he was staying in a hotel and he has admitted that, at the instance of his nephew Surykanth Tiwari, he has received the money and kept it in his possession, they are involved in money laundering of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. In another case reported in AIR 1960 Supreme Court 866 in case of P.B. Gajendragadkar J and K.N. Wanchoo J and K.C. Das Guta J., the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the quashing of FIR by the High Court. Also, in another aforementioned case reported in (1992) 1 SCC 561 in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors Vs Swapan Kumar Guah and Ors the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para 82 that As no offence under the Act is at all disclosed, it will manifestly unjust to allow the process of criminal code to be issued or continued against the firm and to allow any investigation which will be clearly without any authority and the FIR has been quashed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e paper having some entries and used criminal force on the IT officials and prevented them from discharging official duty. Admittedly, the complaint came to be filed after 12 days ie., on 12.7.2022 which is registered as Crime No. 129/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 186, 204, 120B, 353 of IPC. Admittedly, there is no offence of 384 of IPC has been registered by police. However, it is brought to the notice of the Court by SPP II, that there is averments at Para 5 of the complaint, it was mentioned that the accused persons i.e., Suryakanth Tiwari, his brother Rajanikanth Tiwari, his associates Hemanth Jaiswal and others were conspiring and parallely collecting illegal levy on coal and Suryakanth Tiwari has admitted in his statement about the collection of illegal levy. However, while registering the case, the Kadugodi police have not inserted Section 384 of IPC, therefore, subsequently they have obtained the permission from the ACJM for investigating the matter in respect of Section 384 of IPC. Though the learned senior counsel has rightly contended that the Kadugodi police at Bengaluru may not investigate the offence under Section 384 of IPC which is said to be comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possessed by the accused Suryakanth Tiwari at Bengaluru or not, it has to be investigated by the Karnataka police and if the Karnataka police come to any conclusion that the entire episode/offence has been committed at Chhattisgarh, the police are having authority to transfer the case for investigation under Section 384 of IPC to Chhattisgarh police and that has to be challenged by the accused Suryakanth Tiwari, but the said accused Suryakanth Tiwari has not filed any such application before this court, but this petition is filed by the uncle of the Suryakanth Tiwari and he is said to be a conspirator and in possession of crores of amount belonging to the Surykanth Tiwari in his house and also in his possession which were seized by the ED officials. 15. Now coming to procedure under Sections 156(1) (2) and (3) of Cr.P.C, is here under:- 156:- Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable cases (1) Any officer incharge of a police station may without the order of a Magistrate investigate any cognizable cases which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under Section 384 of IPC, they can go for investigation and if they find any material evidence, then they can transfer the investigation to Chhattisgarh. But it has to be challenged by said Suryakanth Tiwari, but he is not the petitioner in this case. 19. But here in this case, the name of the present petitioner has neither appeared in the first information nor in the complaint/first information or in the requisition of the police for investigating for the offence under Section 384 of IPC, in order to challenge the FIR and investigation in Crime No. 129/2022 registered by Kadugodi police. This petitioner has no locus standi to question the investigation or quashing the FIR which was registered against the accused Surykanth Tiwari. 20. The police have not registered any case against this petitioner in Crime No. 129/2022 and the prosecution initiated any proceedings based upon this crime number, this petitioner is not an accused in the Crime No. 129/2022, therefore, he has no authority/right to question the same before this Court. If at all any action was taken by the prosecution and the petitioner aggrieved by that, he has to take the contention before the Court at Chhatt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
