9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 877 - HC - Money LaunderingMaintainability of petition - petition challenged on the premise that the petitioner has filed the case in his individual capacity cannot hold good - prohibition under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly, the writ petition is filed by the petitioner in his capacity as the Investigating Officer in ECIR/ACZO/31/2020. The fact that, the writ petition is filed with official sanction is evident from the appearance of the learned Solicitor General. At the same time, I find substance in the objection raised by the Sri. Raval against the manner in which the documents pertaining to the ED case is produced and persons, who are not made parties, named in the writ petition. The explanation offered for production of the documents is that they form part of Exhibit P5 complaint. If that be so, the petitioner ought to have produced the entire set of documents appended to Exhibit P5 complaint, rather than producing the documents of his choice. Even though the petitioner's action is liable to be deprecated, that does not warrant dismissal of the writ petition. The reason behind bringing certain specified offences under the purview of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C is because the commission of those offences have direct impact on an ongoing judicial proceeding and thereby, on the administration of justice. Section 193 of the IPC being one such offence, the prohibition under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C will apply. Whether the prohibition under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C is from taking cognizance only or whether the Police is interdicted from conducting investigation of the offences enumerated in the section? - HELD THAT - In Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B., 1972 (9) TMI 147 - SUPREME COURT , the offences were under Sections 463, 471, 475, 476 of the IPC and hence the Apex Court held that police authorities have a statutory right under Sections 154 and 156 of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence, without requiring any sanction from a judicial authority and even the High Court has no inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code (Section 482 of the new Code) to interfere with the exercise of that statutory power - The Special Court has taken cognizance of the offences under the PMLA on 12.10.2020. As such, recording of the accused's statements would undoubtedly fall within the import of the words in relation to any proceeding in any court mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) (i). Whether the prohibition under Section 195(1)(b)(i) could be made applicable to all the offences or should be confined to the offences enumerated therein? - HELD THAT - The purpose behind the enactment of Section 195 being to ensure that the proceedings of the court are not sullied, nor the administration of justice not meddled with, if the other offences are interwoven and inseparable from the offences within ambit of Section 195(1)(b)(i), necessarily, the prohibition will have to be extended to the other offences also - the only possible conclusion of the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C being applicable to the offences mentioned in the two FIRs, the allegations being to the effect that attempts were made to fabricate false evidence and to coerce and threaten the accused to give false statements. It may be pertinent to note that, if such attempts had fructified, it would have definitely sullied the proceedings of the court and impacted administration of justice. Therefore, even though the other offences alleged are under Section 167 and 195A of IPC, they are undoubtedly interwoven with and inseparable from the offence under Section 193 and therefore susceptible to the prohibition under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.PC. The Special Court has already received a complaint from Sri.Sandeep Nair and has allowed the application submitted by the Crime Branch to question him in jail. The 161 statement of Sri.Sandeep Nair recorded thereafter was made available to me in a sealed cover. In my considered opinion, while interdicting the Police from continuing the investigation, interest of justice requires that the Special Judge be permitted to look into the materials collected by the Crime Branch, treating it as the information mentioned in Section 340(1), so as to decide whether it is expedient to conduct an enquiry. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved
1. Legality of the registration of FIR by the Crime Branch against ED officials. 2. Applicability of Section 195 of Cr.P.C to the offences alleged. 3. Whether the Police can investigate offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. 4. The role of the Special Court in addressing complaints related to offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. 5. The impact of the prohibition under Section 195(1)(b)(i) on other interwoven offences. 6. The procedure under Section 340 of Cr.P.C for addressing offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i). Detailed Analysis 1. Legality of the Registration of FIR by the Crime Branch Against ED Officials The writ petition was filed by the Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the registration of an FIR by the Crime Branch of the State Police. The FIR was based on allegations that ED officials coerced an accused to implicate the Chief Minister of Kerala. The petitioner argued that the registration of the crime by the State Police against Central Agency officers undermines cooperative federalism and impairs the conduct of free, fair, and impartial investigations by Central Agencies. 2. Applicability of Section 195 of Cr.P.C to the Offences Alleged The court analyzed Section 195 of the Cr.P.C, which restricts courts from taking cognizance of certain offences unless a complaint is made by the court or a public servant. The offences in the FIR included Sections 116, 120B, 167, 192, 193, and 195A of the IPC, with Section 193 falling under the ambit of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the prohibition under Section 195 applies because the offences alleged have a direct impact on judicial proceedings and the administration of justice. 3. Whether the Police Can Investigate Offences Under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C The court considered precedents to determine if Section 195(1)(b)(i) prohibits the police from investigating offences. It was noted that while Section 195(1)(b)(ii) deals with cognizable offences, Section 195(1)(b)(i) deals with non-cognizable offences. The court concluded that the police could not register crimes under Section 195(1)(b)(i) without following the procedure under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. 4. The Role of the Special Court in Addressing Complaints Related to Offences Under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C The court emphasized that the Special Court, which had taken cognizance of the PMLA offences, is the appropriate authority to address complaints related to offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i). The court highlighted that any aggrieved person could alert the court about the commission of a crime intended to mislead the court or scuttle the proceedings, and the court could take action under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. 5. The Impact of the Prohibition Under Section 195(1)(b)(i) on Other Interwoven Offences The court held that the prohibition under Section 195(1)(b)(i) extends to other offences interwoven and inseparable from the primary offence. The court noted that the offences alleged, including Sections 167 and 195A of IPC, were interwoven with the offence under Section 193 and thus fell under the prohibition of Section 195(1)(b)(i). 6. The Procedure Under Section 340 of Cr.P.C for Addressing Offences Under Section 195(1)(b)(i) The court outlined the procedure under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, which allows the jurisdictional court to conduct a preliminary inquiry and decide whether it is expedient to conduct an inquiry into the offences. The court directed that the Special Court should look into the materials collected by the Crime Branch and decide whether to conduct an inquiry. Conclusion The court quashed the FIRs and further proceedings in Crime Nos. 94 of 2021 and 98 of 2021 of the Crime Branch Police Station. The Investigating Officers were directed to submit all records pertaining to the crimes to the Special Court in a sealed cover. The Special Court was authorized to decide whether it is expedient to conduct an inquiry based on the materials submitted. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
|
