2020 Supreme(Kar) 1645

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Rakesh Shetty - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11169 of 2020
Decided On : 05-11-2020

The Court has limited powers to interfere in criminal proceedings under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. and can only do so in exceptional circumstances where it is ex-facie evident that the Complaint is malafide.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL - QUASHING OF FIR - MALAFIDE - INVESTIGATION - JURISDICTION - CCB - SEIZURE OF MATERIAL OBJECTS - RETURN OF SEIZED OBJECTS - USERNAME AND PASSWORD OF SOCIAL MEDIA - RETENTION BY INVESTIGATING AGENCY - POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE AND EXTENT - INTERFERENCE BY COURT - STAGE - AFTER CHARGE SHEET FILED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a Managing Director of a TV News channel, sought to quash the FIR, panchanama, and other proceedings initiated against him alleging malafide and malicious prosecution. The complaint was filed by a contractor alleging that the Petitioner had promised to use his good office with the Commissioner of BDA to ensure the release of money due to the Complainant from the BDA and had made tall claims with regard to his contacts in the State Government as well as Central Government. The Petitioner contended that the investigation was transferred to CCB without jurisdiction and the search and seizure were conducted in a highhanded manner. The Respondent-State contended that the investigation was carried out by a specialized agency, CCB, and the seizure was necessary to preserve evidence.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Court held that it has limited powers to interfere in criminal proceedings under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. and can only do so in exceptional circumstances where it is ex-facie evident that the Complaint is malafide. In the present case, the Court found that the allegations made in the Complaint required investigation and could not be quashed at this stage. 2. The Court held that CCB is not a police station and cannot register a complaint or investigate a matter unless specifically referred to it by a court of law or an administrative order. However, in the present case, the Court found that there was an administrative order transferring the investigation to CCB and therefore, the investigation was valid. 3. The Court held that where material objects are seized during a search, the investigating agency can retain the original and provide a copy to the person from whom they are seized, especially in cases of electronic evidence, servers, laptops, desktops, phones, etc. In cases where samples are sufficient for investigation, the material object seized could be handed over to the person from whom the material object was seized. 4. The Court held that the investigating agency cannot retain the username and password of social media/digital platforms like Facebook and YouTube pending investigation. The investigation agency can download the data required from such accounts and thereafter has to give back the changed credentials to the person who owns the said social media.

Issues: 1. Whether the Court can quash the FIR and other proceedings on the ground of malafide and malicious prosecution? 2. Whether CCB has the jurisdiction to investigate a matter which is not referred to it by a court of law or an administrative order? 3. Whether the investigating agency can retain the original material objects seized during a search and provide a copy to the person from whom they are seized? 4. Whether the investigating agency can retain the username and password of social media/digital platforms like Facebook and YouTube pending investigation?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that it has limited powers to interfere in criminal proceedings under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. and can only do so in exceptional circumstances where it is ex-facie evident that the Complaint is malafide. In the present case, the Court found that the allegations made in the Complaint required investigation and could not be quashed at this stage. 2. The Court held that CCB is not a police station and cannot register a complaint or investigate a matter unless specifically referred to it by a court of law or an administrative order. However, in the present case, the Court found that there was an administrative order transferring the investigation to CCB and therefore, the investigation was valid. 3. The Court held that where material objects are seized during a search, the investigating agency can retain the original and provide a copy to the person from whom they are seized, especially in cases of electronic evidence, servers, laptops, desktops, phones, etc. In cases where samples are sufficient for investigation, the material object seized could be handed over to the person from whom the material object was seized. 4. The Court held that the investigating agency cannot retain the username and password of social media/digital platforms like Facebook and YouTube pending investigation. The investigation agency can download the data required from such accounts and thereafter has to give back the changed credentials to the person who owns the said social media.

Final Decision: The Petition was partly allowed. The Court directed the Respondent-State to return the login credentials of the Facebook and Youtube account of the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The petitioner was permitted to approach the trial Court by filing an application under Section 451 r/w 452 of Cr.P.C. for the return of the equipments seized. The trial Court was directed to consider the application in terms of the observations made by the Court and return the seized items to the petitioner on such terms and conditions as the trial Court may deem fit and proper.