2025 (7) TMI 284 - HC - Money Laundering

Maintainability of petition - Money Laundering - taking bribes from rice millers to approve and procure sub-standard rice produced by the millers - reliability of statements - abuse of process - case against the Petitioner in the chargesheet was premised only on the statements of certain persons whose complicity was found in the commission of the alleged scam and/or from whom recovery of cash amount was made - HELD THAT - The instant petition filed by the petitioner without there being prayer for quashing of the 12 FIRs/ECIRs registered for the aforementioned offences against the petitioner and others how can an interim protection be granted and further the relief No. IV under which provision of law this Court can grant a blanket order not to register any fresh FIR etc. or any such proceeding against the petitioner in future by any of the respondents. At this stage permission of this Court is sought to withdraw the relief in which the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court that no new FIR or any other fresh proceeding be registered or initiated by any Respondent Agencies/ Authorities based on the basis of material already in possession with any of the Respondent Agencies/Authorities without the permission of this Court - this Court has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the prayer. Thus it is apparently clear that no such orders for not arresting or not taking any coercive action can be passed in the pending investigation into the matter. The petitioner is having a remedy to approach the concerning Courts by filing an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr. P.C./482 of BNSS and thereafter can take a recourse under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS wherein the High Court is having an inherent power for quashment of FIR etc. but in the present case without following the dictum of the Hon ble Supreme Court instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking interim protection alleging that the petitioners are unnecessarily being harassed. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ravuri Krishna Murthy 2021 (3) TMI 1478 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court has set aside the similar order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court of granting a blanket order of protection from arrest even after coming to the conclusion that no case for quashing was established. Normally when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim protection and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS before the competent Court. In the present case without exhausting the remedy of seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS or approaching this Court by way of filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS petition seeking quashment of an FIR or a criminal proceedings he has taken a recourse to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - it is apparent that granting of blanket order would not only adversely affect the investigation but would have far reaching implications for maintaining the Rule of Law. Where the investigation is stayed for a long time even if the stay is ultimately vacated the subsequent investigation may not be very fruitful for the simple reason that the evidence may no longer be available. Therefore in case the accused named in the FIR/complaint apprehends his arrest he has a remedy to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS and on the conditions of grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C/482 of BNSS being satisfied he may be released on anticipatory bail by the competent Court. Therefore it cannot be said that the accused is remediless. Considering the matter in its entirety as well as appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the present case does not fall under the category of rarest of the rare cases therefore the relief praying for interim protection to the petitioner without adhering to the statutory provisions of criminal jurisprudence this Court refrains from entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition stands dismissed as not maintainable as the writ Court cannot pass a blanket order of interim protection without there being any prayer for quashing of the FIRs/ECIRs.

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:

• Whether the High Court can grant blanket interim protection from arrest or coercive action in multiple FIRs and ECIRs registered against the petitioner without quashing the FIRs or without the petitioner first availing statutory remedies such as anticipatory bail or quashing petitions under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
• Whether the petitioner is entitled to supervision and monitoring of all investigations against him by the Court to ensure impartiality and fairness.
• The maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking interim protection from arrest in multiple criminal cases without exhausting alternative statutory remedies.
• The applicability of settled legal principles and precedents regarding interference with ongoing investigations and the grant of anticipatory bail or protection from arrest.
• The legitimacy and propriety of the investigative agencies' conduct, including alleged abuse of process, fabrication of evidence, and harassment of the petitioner through successive and overlapping investigations and arrests.
• The legal consequences of the petitioner's non-inclusion as an accused in several FIRs and chargesheets despite allegations made against him in affidavits and submissions before courts.
• The constitutional implications of multiple investigations and arrests on the petitioner's rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Maintainability of the Petition and Grant of Blanket Interim Protection

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court extensively relied on Supreme Court precedents including Sakiri Basu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, Ravuri Krishna Murthy v. State of Telangana, and Habib Abdullah Jeelani v. State of Telangana. These cases establish that High Courts should be extremely cautious in interfering with ongoing investigations and should not grant blanket protection from arrest or stay investigations unless the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence or the prosecution is barred by law. The remedy for accused persons apprehending arrest lies in statutory provisions such as anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the petitioner's approach bypassed the statutory remedies available and directly sought interim protection under Article 226 without filing anticipatory bail applications or quashing petitions. The Court emphasized that granting blanket orders restraining arrest or coercive action during ongoing investigations without quashing the FIRs is impermissible and would hamper the rule of law and the investigation process. The Court also noted that arrest is not mandatory upon registration of an FIR and anticipatory bail applications are the proper remedy.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued that the investigations were malicious, fabricated, and politically motivated, causing harassment and abuse of process. The respondents contended that the petition was legally untenable and that no statutory provision allows such blanket protection, which would impede investigation and prosecution. The Court sided with the respondents, stressing adherence to statutory procedures and judicial restraint in interfering with investigations.

Conclusion: The petition was held not maintainable as the petitioner failed to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 for interim protection. The Court refused to grant blanket protection or stay investigations/arrests.

2. Supervision and Monitoring of Investigations by the Court

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to Sakiri Basu and other precedents clarifying that Magistrates and Courts have limited powers to monitor investigations to ensure fairness but should not themselves investigate. The High Court should discourage writ petitions seeking supervisory intervention in investigations unless there is clear evidence of mala fide or failure of investigation.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner sought Court supervision to ensure impartial investigation. However, given the ongoing investigations and absence of a request for quashing or anticipatory bail, the Court declined to interfere at this stage. The Court highlighted the availability of alternative remedies and the need to avoid judicial overreach in the investigative process.

Conclusion: The Court did not grant supervision or monitoring of investigations and advised the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.

3. Allegations of Abuse of Process, Fabrication of Evidence, and Harassment

Relevant Facts and Findings: The petitioner alleged a conspiracy involving multiple agencies, political interference, fabrication of evidence including tampered digital chats, coerced statements from co-accused, and successive arrests in overlapping cases to prolong incarceration. The petitioner highlighted lack of recovery of proceeds of crime, absence of incriminating material, and non-inclusion as accused in many FIRs and chargesheets despite serious allegations.

Application of Law to Facts: While the petitioner's submissions detailed a pattern of alleged abuse, the Court observed that these contentions require detailed examination and are not determinable at the interim stage. The Court recognized the petitioner's right to seek relief through appropriate statutory processes but must refrain from pre-judging the merits of ongoing investigations.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents denied mala fide conduct and emphasized ongoing investigations and the petitioner's failure to avail statutory remedies. The Court noted that allegations of abuse and harassment, while serious, do not justify judicial interference without proper procedural steps.

Conclusion: The Court did not accept the petitioner's allegations as a ground for interim relief but left open the possibility of appropriate remedies during trial or through anticipatory bail applications.

4. Constitutional Rights and Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence

Legal Framework: The petitioner relied on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, asserting violation of equality and personal liberty through arbitrary arrests and prolonged incarceration without trial. The Court balanced these rights against the societal interest in effective investigation and prosecution of offences.

Court's Interpretation: The Court acknowledged the petitioner's rights but emphasized that legal safeguards exist in the form of anticipatory bail and quashing petitions. The Court underscored that judicial intervention must be sparing and only in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The Court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights are protected by existing legal remedies and that the present petition does not meet the threshold for extraordinary relief under Article 226.

5. Maintainability and Procedural Compliance

Legal Framework: The Court relied on precedents such as Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India, highlighting the necessity to exhaust statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning: The Court found the petition premature and procedurally improper as the petitioner did not seek anticipatory bail or quash the FIRs before filing the writ petition. The Court emphasized the importance of following the procedural hierarchy to maintain the integrity of criminal justice.

Conclusion: The petition was dismissed as not maintainable for failure to exhaust statutory remedies and for seeking relief not permissible under the law.

Significant Holdings

"It is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order directing the police not to arrest till the investigation is completed while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation."

"The High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."

"Where the investigation is stayed for a long time, even if the stay is ultimately vacated, the subsequent investigation may not be very fruitful for the simple reason that the evidence may no longer be available."

"A blanket direction of the nature which has been issued by the High Court would completely dislocate the investigation and cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement of criminal justice. Such an order ought not to have been passed by the High Court."

"The remedy for accused persons apprehending arrest lies in statutory provisions such as anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court should discourage writ petitions seeking supervisory intervention in investigations unless there is clear evidence of mala fide or failure of investigation."

"Judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest."

"The High Courts have very wide powers under Article 226, but such power is to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process and not to convert writ petitions into anticipatory bail proceedings or to grant blanket protection mechanically."

Final Determinations

• The writ petition under Article 226 seeking interim protection from arrest and coercive action in multiple FIRs and ECIRs without quashing the FIRs or exhausting statutory remedies is not maintainable and is dismissed.
• The High Court will not grant blanket orders restraining arrest or investigation during the pendency of investigation unless exceptional circumstances exist.
• The petitioner is entitled to seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Article 226, but must follow these statutory procedures before seeking relief.
• The Court will not interfere with ongoing investigations or trials unless convinced beyond doubt that the FIRs do not disclose any offence or that the prosecution is barred by law.
• The petitioner's allegations of abuse of process and harassment by investigative agencies require adjudication in appropriate proceedings and are not grounds for interim relief in a writ petition.
• The Court cautions against misuse of writ jurisdiction to obtain interim protection in criminal matters without following procedural safeguards, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the rule of law and effective criminal justice administration.