Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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

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 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 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 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 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 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 and also in his possession which were seized by the ED officials.

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 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 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.