9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1381 - HC - Money LaunderingMaintainability of petition - petitioner is neither accused in the FIR nor in the remand application - Money Laundering - illegal demand and extortion of money by the accused - HELD THAT - 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. 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. 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 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 - 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 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. 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 - 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. 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. Thus, 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 Chhattisgarh State where this petitioner is an accused. Therefore, the petition filed by this petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Karnataka Police to investigate the offence under Section 384 of IPC. 2. Locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the FIR and investigation. 3. Legality of considering the offence at Bengaluru as a predicate offence for PMLA case by ED at Chhattisgarh. Detailed Analysis: Jurisdiction of Karnataka Police to Investigate the Offence under Section 384 of IPC: The petitioner contended that the Karnataka Police lacked authority to investigate the offence under Section 384 of IPC, as it was committed in Chhattisgarh. The police should only investigate offences under Sections 353, 186, and 204 of IPC, which occurred in Bengaluru. However, the court noted that the police had obtained permission from the ACJM to investigate the offence under Section 384 of IPC. The court emphasized that under Sections 156(1) and 181(3) of Cr.P.C., the police have the power to investigate cognizable offences and that the place of trial for extortion can be within the jurisdiction where the offence was committed or where the stolen property was possessed. Therefore, the Karnataka Police could investigate the matter and transfer it to Chhattisgarh if necessary. Locus Standi of the Petitioner to Challenge the FIR and Investigation: The petitioner, being the uncle of the accused Suryakanth Tiwari, argued that he was falsely implicated and had no connection to the offences. The court observed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR or the complaint and had no locus standi to challenge the investigation in Crime No. 129/2022. The court held that the petitioner could not question the investigation or seek quashing of the FIR, as he was not an accused in the said crime number. The petitioner was advised to raise any grievances before the Special Court at Chhattisgarh. Legality of Considering the Offence at Bengaluru as a Predicate Offence for PMLA Case by ED at Chhattisgarh: The petitioner contended that the offence at Bengaluru could not be a predicate offence for the PMLA case registered by the ED at Chhattisgarh. The court noted that the accused Suryakanth Tiwari was involved in money laundering and extortion, and the petitioner was found in possession of substantial amounts of money and gold, linking him to the offence. The court held that the petitioner should challenge the registration of the PMLA case before the Special Court at Chhattisgarh or the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The court emphasized that the investigation into the offences under Sections 120B and 384 of IPC was necessary and could be transferred to the appropriate jurisdiction if required. Conclusion: The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Police to investigate the offence under Section 384 of IPC and found that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the FIR and investigation. The court also held that the petitioner should address any issues related to the PMLA case before the appropriate court in Chhattisgarh.
|
