Karnataka High Court
Sri Sutram Suresh vs State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
WPHC NO.33 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI SUTRAM SURESH
SON OF SHANKAR RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.A-1505
BRIGADE GATEWAY
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 055. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, ADV. )
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. POLICE INSPECTOR
JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 041. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA, ADDL. AG A/W
SRI A.M.SURESH REDDY, AGA)
2
THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS OR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION OF
APPROPRIATION NATURE DECLARING THAT THE DETENTION
OF THE PETITIONER IN POLICE CUSTODY IS ILLEGAL AND
WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY
RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH BY QUASHING THE
ORDER OF POLICE REMAND PASSED IN CRIME NO.99/2018
OF JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY BY
ORDER DATED 02.04.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ACMM,
BENGALURU.
THIS WPHC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
BUDIHAL R.B., J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India by the petitioner praying the Court to issue writ of habeas corpus, or writ or order or direction of appropriation nature declaring that his detention in police custody is illegal and without authority of law and consequently release the petitioner forthwith by quashing the remand order dated 2.4.2018 passed by the IV ACMM, Bengaluru in Crime No.99/2018 of Jayanagar police station, Bengaluru city.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
Respondent No.2-Jayanagar police have registered Crime 3 No.99/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 403, 420 and 406 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC on 13.3.2018 at 5.30 p.m. on the basis of the complaint lodged by Dr.Brinda Chennappa she has alleged herself and her family members deposited Rs.3.7 crores with M/s.Vikram Investment Company on the representations of its Director Raghavendra Srinath and Wife Suneetha Acharya and one K.P.Narasimha Murthy since 2014. They received interest/profit till recently. But for the month of February 2018, did not receive profits as promised and on 3.3.2018 she reliably learnt that Vikram Investment Company has played fraud in accepting deposit.
3. Similar FIR was registered by the Banashankari Police Station in Crime No.73/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC on 3.3.2018 at 10.00 a.m. on the complaint filed by one P.R.Balaji on the allegation of fraud in collecting the deposits for Vikram Investment Company and non-receipt of the invested money and fraud. In that case, the 4 petitioner was arrested on 4.3.2018 and he was produced before the 4th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 5.3.2018 and the Hon'ble Magistrate remanded him for police custody till 16.3.2018. Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody.
4. On coming to know that the petitioner and other accused are in judicial custody in Crime No.73/2018, the Investigating Officer in Crime No.99/2018 of Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru filed application on 24.03.2018 for body warrant stating that the petitioner including other accused are required for investigation in Crime No.99/2018.
5. Though the FIR was not registered against the petitioner and also in the progress of the investigation conducted from 13.3.2018 till 2.4.2018, there is no involvement of this petitioner in the alleged offence, but mechanically the investigation officer filed application seeking body warrant.
5
6. The Hon'ble 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.3.2018 in Crime No.99/2018 of Jayanagar police station, issued body warrant for production of petitioner before the Court on 2.4.2018. Hence, petitioner has approached this Court in this petition.
7. The Additional Advocate General has filed the objection statement to the petition, which is taken on record.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is totally unconnected to Crime No.99/2018 and not an accused, even according to the case of respondents themselves, his name is not mentioned in FIR as one of the accused, the specific case of the prosecution is that only accused Nos.1 to 3 are involved in the case, even then, application seeking body warrant was filed. He intends 6 that the learned Magistrate without satisfying whether petitioner is involved in the case and whether he is an accused or not, has mechanically passed the order. Learned counsel further submitted that unless the conditions under Section 167 or 267 of Cr.P.C. are complied with, no order for giving him to police custody can be passed, and the materials in this case will not make out a case for invoking the jurisdiction Section 167 or 267 of Cr.P.C. for remanding the petitioner to the police custody, hence, detention of the petitioner is illegal.
10. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relies upon the following judgments:
1) AIR 1969 SC Page 1014
2) 1970 (2) SCC Page 399
3) AIR 1953 SC Page 277
4) ILR 1992 KAR Page 3456
5) AIR 2014 SC Page 2756
6) ILR 1991 KAR Page 4081
7) 2013 (5) SCR Page 1 7
11. Per-contra, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents submits that the petitioner herein is an accused person in another Crime No.73/2018, in respect of the very Vikram Investment Company number of cases are filed by the depositors alleging siphoning of an amount of Rs.415 crores by the accused persons. He drew our attention to the contents of the complaint in Crime No.99/2018 and submitted that there is an allegation in the complaint even against the petitioner regarding his involvement in the said case, non-mentioning of the name in the FIR itself is not a decisive factor since FIR is not an encyclopedia, the matter is still under investigation. He submits that since production on body warrant and remand to police custody are by the judicial order of the learned Magistrate, the detention of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal. He submits the matter is still under enquiry and at this stage, it cannot be concluded that petitioner is totally unconnected with the alleged offence 8 and not an accused at all. Hence, petition itself is not maintainable.
12. We have perused the averments made in the petition, objection filed by the respondents and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also considered the submission made by both sides at the bar.
13. As per the contention of the petitioner, he is not an accused person at all and as such, his detention is illegal. But as per the contention of the respondents herein, petitioner is an accused person and hence, body warrant was obtained and order was passed by the learned Magistrate for police custody. Therefore, legality of those orders is the disputed question of facts.
14. In the remand application, petitioner is shown as accused No.6. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has not at all mentioned the name of the petitioner as one of the accused in the case as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The detention of 9 the petitioner by the police is by virtue of the judicial order of the learned Magistrate. If the order of the learned Magistrate is illegal according to the petitioner, he has to challenge the same before the appropriate forum and writ of Habeas Corpus does not lie.
15. The matter is under investigation. There are allegations that more than Rs.415 crores of money has been siphoned by the accused persons. Under these circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand and will not come to the aid of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition.
Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE bkp