Criminal Action Only When There Is Prima Facie Evidence: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that there should be prima facie material to initiate criminal proceedings against any person or else it would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Quashing a criminal case against Vipul Prakash Patil, an agriculturist from Sangli in Maharashtra, the High Court in its recent order said "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." 

The Chikkodi police had registered the case against Patil based on a complaint lodged by a person named Shivananda Magaduma under Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 (KPID Act) and under Sections 406 and 420 (cheating) of the IPC.

It was alleged that Patil and three others had promised a return of 10 installments of Rs 15,000 each if an investment of Rs one lakh was made.

"Initially, in order to gain the confidence of the complainant and other investors, Pinomic Company, a limited liability partnership firm, repaid the amount for a few months and thereafter stopped paying the amount. The efforts made by the complainant and others to recover the money went in vain and left with no alternative they approached Chikkodi police and lodged the complaint," it was averred.

The counsel for Patil contended before the High Court that "Having regard to the scheme of KPID Act, 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 and there must be a satisfactory report that the fraud has occurred in a given case resulting in further proceedings before the Special Court and registration of the case etc., and in the case on hand, Chikkodi police have directly registered the case as if it is an IPC offence without there being any satisfactory report on record and till today." 

Accepting the argument, the High Court bench of Justice Srishananda in its judgement on May 30 said "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 the right of a citizen enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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." 

The High Court quashed the case against Patil but said if there is evidence found later action can be taken against him.

"However, if the investigating agency are to find any substantive material during the course of investigation whereby nexus is established between the alleged fraud and the present petitioner - Vipul Prakash Patil, this order shall not come in the way of investigating agency in arraigning the present petitioner as an additional accused in the case."

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)