Prathik Parasrampuria vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Rathnakala, J.—Though this case is listed for admission, is heard on merits from both sides and taken up for final disposal.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner. Petitioner is arrayed as the sole accused in the FIR registered on the complaint of the Second respondent/Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) and Team Leader, Dedicated Flying Squad in Crime No. 107/2014 dated 11.04.2014 in respect of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 171E and 188 of IPC.

Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a businessman; his family is engaged in transport business and real estate business. His father and uncle have license for transportation and selling of explosives and hypothecation of transport business. In the building, where the raid was conducted there are 12 proprietorship business of which, three of them belong to Hindu Undivided Family and nine are partnership firms of his family. All the income of the family is accounted by filing income tax returns periodically. The joint family has a fixed deposit of more than Rs. 34 crores in different banks. They are engaged in business for many years. The amount of tax paid by the joint family members exceeds 1.5 crores to 2 crores annually. The signed cheque leaves seized under the mahazaar are duly signed by the holders who are none other than the members of the joint family for the business purpose. On the evening of 11.04.2014, abruptly with a mala fide intention, the second respondent with his flying squad raided the premises and registered a case in crime No. 107/2014. Again on 12.04.2014, the Police Inspector of Brucepet Police Station raided the house on the allegation of possession of counterfeit currency by the petitioner. This time, they seized several documents, income tax paid challans, fixed deposits receipts worth more than Rs. 34 crores belonging to the petitioner and his family members, infrastructure bonds, property documents pertaining to non-agricultural lands, in the presence of Tahsildhar. Though they could not find any counterfeit currency, they conducted the raid under the guise of seizing controversial or disputed documents. The alleged offence of possession of cash amount, cheques, etc. does not constitute offences under Sections 171(e) and 188 of IPC. No incriminating material linking this petitioner to any political party could be seized during the raid.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the complaint is filed on the night of 11.04.2014 at 11.15 p.m. The raiding party came to the premises of the petitioner at 7.30 p.m. and lodged a computer generated complaint running into 8 pages. The FIR was disbursed to the judicial magistrate on the next day of morning at 7.30 a.m. There is no documentary proof about any mahazaar having been conducted between 7.35 p.m. to 11.15 p.m. of 11.04.2014, no P.F. form was submitted to the Court. The so called seized articles were not accompanied with the amount seized. Again on 12.04.2014, the respondent again raided his business premises in the presence of the Taluka Magistrate and on the further allegation of possession of fake currency notes, disputed documents pertaining to immovable property etc. Though the petitioner tried to reason out his possession of bonds of various banks, National Saving Certificate, share bonds and xerox copies of the documents pertaining to non-agricultural land with conversion orders etc. they did not pay heed. The seizure went on from 12.30 p.m. on 11/4/2014 to 5.30 a.m. on 13/4/2014. Each and every bit of the immovable property seized by the Investigating Officer is lawfully earned by him, for which he has accounted to the Income Tax Department and all the business transaction done by him and his family members are under valid license. The registration of the case itself is vitiated because there was no complaint whatsoever against him from any corner of the public. Due to extraneous reason, the second respondent has registered false complaint against him that too after entering into his premises and causing improper seizure without following the procedure. The complaint on the face of it fails to disclose any sort of offence and is liable to be quashed at the threshold itself. There is not even spell of word in the complaint, attracting the commission of offences under Sections 171(E) and 188 of IPC. Taking advantage of his official position during the election time, the second respondent has fixed him in a false case under the circumstances proceeding further on the basis of F.S.R. is nothing but sheer abuse of law, hence the F.S.R. is liable to quashed.

The learned High Court Government Pleader in reply submits, on 6/3/2014, the Election Commission of India passed an order under Article 324 of Constitution of India prevention of all sorts of malpractice, transportation of large sum of cash amount and any other item, was entrusted to the Flying Squad, Bellary. As one of the candidate to the election was noticed as expenditure sensitive, the second respondent in his official capacity as the leader of the Flying Squad, with the due authorization had inspected the commercial premises of the petitioner and lodged a complaint. In consequence of the said complaint, the Police Inspector of the Brucepet Police Station, in the presence of the Taluk Magistrate, conducted Mahazaar and seized the articles. In view of the stay order granted by this Court, the Investigating Officer could not investigate about the various allegations made against the petitioner. If time schedule is fixed and had given free hand, the Investigating Officer will conduct investigation and submit his final report. The very possession of huge amount bonds, deposits etc., in the possession of the petitioner smacks, economic offences under IPC and different offences under Money Lenders Act. Investigating Officer has not committed illegality in registering the F.S.R. and the petition is liable to be rejected.

Sri Krishna Dixit, learned counsel for the second respondent submits that in view of the order issued by the Election Commission dated 6/3/2014, prescribing his duties and functions associated with the election process, as the team leader of the flying squad he was obliged to take action, whenever a complaint regarding distribution of cash or kind was brought to his notice. The seizer of the cash and Bonds is permissible under his official duty by following the procedure permissible under law. The huge cash money kept in the premises of the petitioner was definitely to bribe the voters. With regard to the documents seized in respect of immovable property; unless probed to accretion the veracity, no answer can be given only on guess work.

In the light of the above rival submissions following point arises for my consideration:

"Whether the complaint in question reveals any sort of offence under any provisions of law?"

As made out by the 2nd respondent, on a credible information received by the Deputy Commissioner through SMS on 11/4/2014 to the effect that huge cash amount running to Rs. 120 crores is thatched for the purpose of bribing the voters in the ensuing election, under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, he issued a search warrant under Section 94 of Cr.P.C. The flying squad led by the 2nd respondent along with the police made search in the business premises of the second respondent, items were listed and the complaint was lodged. The search and seizure on the following day was conducted on the basis of the fresh information received. The very possession of huge amount of cash and cash Bonds, which were found in the business premises were suspected with some ulterior purpose. The genuineness of the currency notes could not be tested on that day since the cash counting machine was not in order. The items seized are listed in the PF Form and submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Because of the interim order passed in this case, now the prosecution may not be able to pursue investigation in respect of the offence under Sections 171(E) and 188 of IPC. Still there are genuine reasons for investigating the matter under other various offences as submitted by the State.

Admittedly, before proceeding for search in the capacity of the Special Divisional Magistrate, the 2nd respondent issued the warrant under Section 94 of Cr.P.C. and after the search in the capacity of the Assistant Commissioner, he has lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police without mentioning anything about any specific offence under the provisions of Peoples Representation Act. There is no clue in the said complaint as to which party the accused was favoring and intending to distribute his money. However, the Investigating Officer registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 171(E) and 188 of IPC. For the benefit of reference, the said provisions read thus:-

"Section 171E :- Punishment for bribery -- Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both:

Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.

Explanation-"Treating" means that form of the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provision.

Classification of offence

Punishment -- Imprisonment for 1 year, or fine, or both or if treating only, fine only -- Non-cognisable -- Bailable -- Triable by Magistrate of the first class -- Non-compoundable."

Section 188 -- Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. -- Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,

Shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;

And if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Explanation - It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm."

Unfortunately, there is not even a fabric of averment in the complaint as to whom the accused intended to bribe and by what mode he had planned to bribe. It is not as if that there was a complaint in this regard, either by the victim or by any other affected persons. In that view of the matter, I have to say that no case is made out from the complaint allegation more specifically in respect of offence under Section 171(E) of IPC. With regard to Section 188 of IPC, nothing is alleged in the complaint as to which was that order promulgated by a public servant which the accused consciously violated. The entire complaint allegation is whimsical and fail to make out any offence under any of the provisions of the IPC. The proceeding on such a fragile complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed the FIR in crime No. 107/2014 of Brucepet Police, Bellary along with the complaint at Annexure N is quashed.