Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that 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," held the bench of Justice V Srishananda. 

Court emphasised that no person shall be allowed to undergo the ordeal of a criminal investigation unless there is some material which would connect the said person with the alleged crime.

Court was dealing with a criminal petition to quash the complaint and the FIR registered for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 of IPC and Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Deposits in Financial Establishment Act 2004.

The gist of the complaint was that the petitioner, along with two other men, had made the complainant and others invest money in a fraud company by promising alluring returns. 

Amid the investigation being done by the police, the petitioner challenged the very registration of the case. His claim was that he was in no way involved in the fraud. 

His argument was that in the absence of any preliminary satisfaction report lodged by the competent authority with the State Government, registration of a case for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the KPID Act or the other IPC offences would not arise at all, therefore, the registration of the case would affect the personal liberty of the petitioner and would result in abuse of process of law.

The petitioner's counsel also contended that even assuming that the case as against Pinomic Ventures LLP stood established, the complaint himself was silent as to the role played by the petitioner.

Court found that there was no prima facie documentary proof to hook the petitioner in the alleged fraud.

Therefore, while highlighting that in the present matter, only name of the petitioner was taken in the complaint without there being any documentary proof, court opined that continuation of investigation against the petitioner would necessarily result in abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, court allowed the petition and quashed the case against the petitioner. 

However, court clarified that if, in the future, the investigating agency finds any substantive material during the course of the investigation against the petitioner, the present order shall not come in the way of making the petitioner additional accused.

Case Title: Vipul Prakash Patil v. State of Karnataka & Another