To Undergo Ordeal Of Criminal Investigation Without Prima Facie Material For Alleged Crime Violates Article 21: Karnataka HC

“In order to proceed against a person with criminal action, the complainant or the prosecuting agency must make out a prima facie material whereby some nexus could be established to the alleged crime with a person. If such material is not available, very registration of the case against such persons would definitely amount to abuse of process of law affecting right of a citizen enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No person shall be allowed to undergo ordeal of a criminal investigation unless there is some material which would connect the said person with the alleged crime”, observed a bench of Justice V. Srishananda.

Senior Advocate Pramod Kathavi appeared for the petitioner, and HCGP Girija S. Hiremath appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter it was alleged that there was an offer made by Pankaj Namadev Patil and Santosh Gangaram Ghodake along with the present petitioner that if a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is invested, they would return the amount within ten months in installments of Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant and others invested huge sums of money.

It was further alleged that in order to gain the confidence of the complainant and other investors, Pinomic Company, a limited liability partnership firm repaid the amount for few months and thereafter stopped paying the amount.

Therefore, a complaint was registered under the provisions of Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 (KPID Act) and under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

The petitioner having regard to the scheme of KPID Act thus contended that registration of a case by the police is impermissible unless there is a preliminary enquiry to be conducted by the competent authority based on the complaint or suo moto information.

However, seeking dismissal the respondent contended that KPID Act is for redressal of both civil and criminal actions under one roof by the Special Judge and therefore, satisfactory report is unnecessary for registration of a case.

The Court thus considering the averments made and the contentions put forth opined, “…this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any prima facie documentary proof to hook in the present petitioner in the alleged fraud, the very registration of complaint as against the present petitioner is unnecessary and has resulted in abuse of process of Court”.

“In the case on hand, since only name of the present petitioner is taken in the complaint without there being any documentary proof to remotely establish the nexus to the alleged fraud and the present petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of investigation as against the present petitioner would necessarily result in abuse of process of law…Therefore, a case is made out by the petitioner to exercise powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of CrPC in seeking quashing of very registration of the case as against the petitioner”, the bench thus observed.

Resultantly, while allowing the petition, the bench further directed that if the investigating agency does find any substantive material during the course of investigation with a nexus, the present order shall not come in the way of investigating agency, arraigning the petitioner as an additional accused in the case.

Cause Title: Vipul Prakash Patil v. State of Karnataka