Karnataka High Court
Laxmikanth Tiwari vs State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
WRIT PETITION NO.21944 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
LAXMIKANTH TIWARI
S/O LATE SRI VRINDAVAN PRASAD TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT WARD NO.1, SHANKAR NAGAR,
MAHASAMUND,
CHHATTISGARH-493445 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.CHIDAMBARAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KADUGODI POLICE STATION,
REP BY THE SPP OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001
3. PAKKIRESH BADAMI
S/O K R BADAMI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
2
INVESTIGATION FOREIGN ASSETS INVESTIGATION
UNIT-1,
R/A 5TH FLOOR, C R BUILDING ANNEXE,
QUEENS ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II FOR R1 AND R2
ALONG WITH SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2
SRI M.B. NARAGUND, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR
SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF WRIT PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR DATED 12.07.2022 IN CRIME
NO.129/2022 AND COMPLAINT DATED 12.07.2022 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIOND 186, 204, 120B AND
353 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 REGISTERED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 KADUGODI POLICE STATION, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ACJM),
BENGALURU, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNX-A AND
B. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ALL FURTHER
INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE FIR
DATED 12.07.2022 IN CRIME NO.0129/2022 AND COMPLAINT
DATED 12.07.2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 186, 204, 120B AND 353 OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860, REGISTERED BY THE R-2 KADUGODI POLICE
STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE (ACJM), BENGALURU, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT VIDE ANNX-A AND B.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.11.2022 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Writ petition filed by the petitioner under article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR in Crime No.129/2022 registered by the Kadugodi police for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 204, 120B, 353, and 384 of IPC now pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bengaluru Rural District (herein after referred as ACJM).
2. Heard the argument of Sri.P.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned S.P.P.II for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Additional Solicitor General for respondent No.3 (ASG).
4
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.3, the Deputy Director of Income Tax Investigation, Foreign Assets, Investigation Unit, Bengaluru filed first information to the Kadugodi Police on 12.07.2022 alleging that on 30.06.2022 the investigation team carried out a search and seizure action under Section 132 of Income Tax Act, at Raipur as well as at Sheraton Hotel Grand in room No.664, Bengaluru. The room was occupied by the accused Suryakanth Tiwari and while the team was trying to apprehend him, he had destroyed the mobile phone in the bathroom and also tried to flush out the same in the commode and tried to swallow the important documentary evidence. While apprehending him he is said to have used criminal force on the public authorities and prevented them from discharging their official duty. After registering the case, during the investigation, the 5 police said to have obtained permission from the ACJM for investigating for the offences punishable under Section 384 of IPC also. Later the IT officer said to have written a letter to the Enforcement Department and thereafter the ED registered a case in ECIR-RPZO- 09/22 and they have arrested this petitioner in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (herein after referred as PMLA) case and he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner being the close relative of the accused Suryakanth Tiwari, has filed this petition for quashing the FIR 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 6 196, 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, as his name is not in the FIR or in the complaint. The case 7 registered by the Kadugodi police Bengaluru is entirely different which is for destroying the electronic evidence, preventing the public servant, by showing the criminal force on them which has occurred purely at Bengaluru. The police can investigate the matter against Suryakanth Tiwari against those offences, but this petitioner has been falsely implicated and the police investigating in the offences committed at Bengaluru, which is against the provisions of Section 156 of Cr.P.C. and as per Section 181 (3) of Cr.P.C., in respect of offence of extortion shall be tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Such being the case, the offence of extortion was committed at Chhattisgarh and the police at Bengaluru has no authority to investigate the matter. Therefore, the investigation and the FIR against this petitioner is liable to be quashed. 8
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended, if at all any complaint lodged in respect of the offence under section 384 of IPC, the police can register zero FIR and they can transfer the same to the jurisdictional police, but they are having no jurisdiction to investigate the matter for the offence under Section 384 of IPC and further contended, for the purpose of registering the case by ED, the offence under Sections 186, 204, and 353 of IPC were not scheduled offences. Therefore, in order to bring them in a schedule offences under Section 384 of IPC has been falsely invoked at Bengaluru as a predicate offence which is not permissible. Also, further contended that even if it assumed that the offence committed under section 384 of IPC as a gospel truth, but Karnataka police cannot investigate the matter as the said offence is committed at Chhattisgarh. He further contended that while 9 registering the case by ED they have mentioned the case registered at Bengaluru, as a base or a predicate offence for the offence punishable under Sections 384 and 386 of IPC which were not the part of the FIR at Bengaluru and they have also added 120B of IPC without any basis, therefore prayed for quashing the FIR and the investigation against this petitioner
6. The learned senior counsel in support of his argument relied upon judgments as under; x T.P. Nandakumar Vs State of Kerala and Ors in Criminal.Rev.Pet.No.2959/2007 ILR 2007 (4) Kerala 154;
x Shoit Khosla and Anr -V - State of Punjab - CRM-M No.16890/2020 (O&M);
x State of West Bengal Vs Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors in (1982 1 SCC 561);
10x State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal and Ors 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 x 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 11 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 permission to investigate the offence of extortion committed by Suryakanth Tiwari and this petitioner cannot challenge the same. If at all the offence under Section 384 of IPC is not required to be investigated at Bengaluru by Karnataka Police, still time is available for them to transfer the said offence to Chhattisgarh State Police. Therefore, question of quashing the FIR and the complaint filed against Suryakanth Tiwari by this petitioner does not arises.
8. The learned SPP II further contended that the alleged offence also including 120B of IPC and included Section 384 of IPC, where the accused Suryakanth Tiwari involved in collecting the illegal 12 money from the coal mining persons and he has collected more than 100 Crores of money and involved in money laundering offence. Both this petitioner and Surykanth Tiwari were apprehended by ED at Chhattisgarh and also there were recovery of Rs.6.44 crores from the house of the Surykanth Tiwari and this petitioner is the uncle of Surykanth Tiwari. The amount collected by the Surykanth Tiwari has been handed over to this petitioner and hard cash has been seized by the ED officials from the possession of this petitioner. Both this petitioner and Surykanth Tiwari have all admitted in the enquiry made by the Income tax officials as well as the ED officials. Therefore, there is strong evidence against him, for conducting investigation against him and it cannot be said that the role of this petitioner is not there in the evidence. If at all this petitioner is aggrieved by the investigation of the ED, he has to urge the said 13 ground before the Special Court at Chhattisgarh and he has no locus standi to question the FIR and the investigation by the Karnataka police as against Surykanth Tiwari. Hence prayed for dismissing the petition.
9. The learned Additional Solicitor General, also objected the petition and supported the arguments of the SPP II and further he would contend that the petitioner is involved in extortion case along with the main accused Suryakanth Tiwari at Chhattisgarh. The Income tax authority raided the hotel room of Suryakanth Tiwari, at that time he has destroyed the digital evidence and prevented the public servant from discharging the public duty. The IT officials conducted search simultaneously at Bengaluru, as well as at the house of Suryakanth Tiwari at Chhattisgarh and they found and seized huge cash in his house and 14 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 15 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 more than 100 crores. Therefore, it is contended that this petitioner can take any contention before the Special Court at Chhattisgarh and not before this court and no case registered against him at Bengaluru, hence prayed for dismissing the petition.
10. The learned ASG relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court x Crl.A.330/2021 relied by the ASG, the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors;
x P.Dharmaraj Vs Shanmugam and Ors in Crl.A.No.1514/2022 SLP 1354/22 Criminal 16 Original Petition No.19880 of 2022 and connected matter Crl.M.P.Nos.13073 & 1307; x P.Rajendran Vs/ Assistant Director of Directorate of Enforcement Criminal Original Petition No.19880 of 2022 and connected matter Crl.M.P.Nos.13073 & 13076 of 2022
11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner mainly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlal's case wherein it was laid down 7 principles, while considering the quashing the criminal proceedings as held under:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.17
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.18
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or 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 19 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. On the other hand, the learned ASG relied upon a judgment of the madras high court division bench in Criminal Original Petition No.19880 of 2022 and connected matter Crl.M.P.Nos.13073 & 13076 of 2022 in the case of P.Rajendran Vs/ Assistant Director of Directorate of Enforcement, wherein the High Court of Madras has taken a view that the person who named as accused in the predicate offence, against whom the prosecution in 20 the predicate offence is quashed or is discharged or acquitted, the benefit cannot be extended to a person who has not been arraigned as an accused in the predicate offence, because the offence under the PMLA is a standalone offence and is different and distinct from predicate offence. The learned ASG also relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Dharmaraj Vs Shanmugam and Ors in Crl.A.No.1514/2022 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to vacate the interim order passed by the High Court. In Crl.A.330/2021 relied by the ASG, the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors has held that the Court cannot grant an interim stay of investigation or coercive system should be adopted during the pendency of quashing the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and/or Article 226 of Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued some 21 guidelines while dealing with the matter for quashing the FIR and observed, the FIR should be quashed only in the rarest of rare case and Court thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. Further held, quashing of FIR should be an exception rather than the ordinary role. In another judgment relied by ASG, in Crl.A.No.1044/2022 Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari Vs The State of Gujarat and Anr., case the Hon'ble Supreme Court also taken similar view.
13. Having heard the arguments of both parties, I have perused the judgments relied by the respective counsel for the parties and by keeping the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said cases in mind and perused the records. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, the Income Tax officials said to have raided the hotel Sheraton Grand at Whitefield Bengaluru, where 22 accused Suryakanth Tiwari had occupied in the hotel and it is alleged that on 30.06.2022 he has destroyed the electronic evidence and attempted to chew the 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 23 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 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 24 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 power to investigate the matter for the offence which were not mentioned in the FIR in addition to the sections in the FIR, however, they should obtain the permission of the Magistrate. Here in this case, the police already obtained the permission from the ACJM on 03.09.2022 for adding section 384 of IPC. That apart, even merely the offence is committed at Chhattisgarh, it cannot be said that the police cannot register FIR at Bengaluru, but they are very much having authority to register FIR or zero FIR but only after definite enquiry, then they shall forward or transfer investigation to the police who are having jurisdiction to investigate the 25 matter and the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence.
14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. the police are having power to investigate the matter in cognizable cases, which the court is having jurisdiction in local area within the limits of such Station and as per Section 181 (3) of Cr.P.C., the offence of extortion may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, therefore the Karnataka Police have no jurisdiction to register the offence under Section 384 of IPC. On the other hand, the SPP II as well as Additional Solicitor General has contended that this accused Suryakanth Tiwari though the offence of extortion was committed at Chhattisgarh, however some documents and some cash were seized at 26 Bengaluru in the hotel where the accused Suryakanth Tiwari was apprehended by the IT officials, therefore whether any property in which the offence was committed under Section 384 of IPC has been 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 27 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 XIII, (2) No proceedings of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this Section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may Order such an investigation as above mentioned."
16. On bare reading of the sub-section 1 and 3 of the 156 of Cr.P.C which empowers the police to investigate any cognizable offences which the Court having jurisdiction and the Magistrate is empowered 28 under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned and on reading of Section 181 (3) of Cr.P.C, the place of trial in case of the theft, extortion or robbery which may incurred into or tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed.
17. For the convenience Section 181(3) of Cr.P.C. referred as under;
181:- Place of trial in case of certain offences, "(3) Any offence of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tied by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property which is the subject of the offence was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property."
18. On the bare reading of the provisions of Section 181 (3) of Cr.P.C which empowers the Court having jurisdiction of four places i.e., (1) The Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was 29 committed, Or (2) the stolen property which is the subject matter of offence was possessed by any person committing it, Or (3) By any person who received, Or (4) retain such property, knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property. Therefore, it cannot be said the Court having jurisdiction to try to the offence only if the offence is committed within the local jurisdiction, but also the other three places of Courts can try the offence as per Section 181 (3) of Cr.P.C. On that background, if the accused Suryakanth Tiwari is alleged to have been involved in the commission of extortion at Chhattisgarh State and if he has carried any crime proceeds and he was apprehended at Bengaluru or any evidence/material pertaining to the said offence was found at Bengaluru, the local Magistrate is empowered to try the offence. If at all the police after obtaining the permission for investigation under 30 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 31 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 Chhattisgarh and not in this case, before this Court. The matter requires to be investigated by the police to verify whether the accused/Suryakanth Tiwari is involved in destroying the electronic and other documentary evidence at Bengaluru in respect of offence under section 384 of IPC, which may be committed at Chhattisgarh.
21. As regards to the another contention raised by the learned senior counsel for petitioner that the offence took place at Bengaluru in Crime No.129/22 cannot be a predicate offence for registering case 32 under PML Act by the ED at Chhattisgarh, wherein this petitioner was made as co-accused 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. Ofcourse, the petitioner has no role in respect of the offence with respect to the offence under Section 204, 186 and 354 of IPC at present, but Section 120B and 384 of IPC the matter requires to be investigated by the police. If no offence committed at Bengaluru in respect of 384 of IPC or 386 of IPC, then they can 33 transfer the said case to the State of Chhattisgarh police who is having jurisdiction. Therefore, in view of the judgment relied by the learned ASG and principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharikas's case stated supra and in Dharmaraj's case and Siddharth Mukehs's case, I am of the view 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 Chattisgarh State where this petitioner is an accused. Therefore, the petition filed by this petitioner is liable to be dismissed for the aforesaid reasons. 34
Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner/Laxmikanth Tiwari is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV