Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) —Petitioner
versus
State by CCB Police and Ors. —Respondents
Writ Petition No.10760 of 2020 (GM-RES)
Decided on 12.1.2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 93—Search Warrant—Issuance of—Quashing petition—It is claimed that petitioner being a political party has been targeted by State—Petitioner carries out empowerment of deprived section of society and has not indulged in any unlawful activity—It is stated that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as petitioner had filed application before NIA, Special Court under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. wherein it was specifically contended that seizure proceedings was illegal and therefore, sought for return of seized items—Neither application filed nor order of dismissal of application had been disclosed by petitioner, as such, there is suppression of material facts by petitioner—Offences which are alleged to be committed are very serious in nature inasmuch as two police stations had been vandalised, several vehicles were burnt, there were group of more than two hundred to three hundred persons who attacked the police officers, burnt the police station, damaged the public property including government and public vehicles. All this was done at the instance of the office bearers of the petitioner—It is petitioner’s political organization which was made use for calling a meeting, instigating mob to indulge in violence and thereafter coordinated violence, riots and arson resorted to—If search warrant was not issued, there was danger of incriminating article being removed and/or destroyed—It is not in all cases that summons have to be issued prior to issuance of a search warrant—If Court were to come to a conclusion that issuance of summons under Section 93 (1) or 92 (1) of Cr.P.C. would not result in production of said document or information, search warrant could be issued—Procedure for issuance of search warrant under Section 93 of Cr.P.C. is de hors and over and above requirements under Section 91(1) of Cr.P.C.—It is not required in all circumstances to issue a summons prior to issuance of a search warrant—A search warrant could be issued in terms of Section 93(1)(c) without issuing a summon under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.—Petition dismissed. (Paras 2, 9.3, 9.5, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 16.10, 16.11 and 18.1)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Suraj Govindaraj, J.—The petitioner, a political party represented by its Secretary is before this Court seeking for quashing of the order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the 44th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crime No.229/2020 and Crime No.195/2020 issuing warrants to search under Section 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code and consequent mahazars carried out in pursuance of said search at the various offices.
2. It is claimed that the petitioner being a political party has been targeted by the State. The petitioner carries out empowerment of the deprived section of the society and has not indulged in any unlawful activity.
3. It is stated that on 11/12.08.2020, there was vandalism and arson within the limits of D.G.Halli and K.G.Halli Police Stations. The said police stations were attacked on account of a blasphemous facebook post, which took an ugly turn allegedly on account of lack of timely intervention and action by the police.
4. It is in pursuance thereof Crime No.229/2020 was registered by K.G.Halli Police Station and Crime No.195/2020 was registered by D.G.Halli Police Station for offences under Sections 353, 143, 147, 148, 333, 332, 436, 427 read with 149 of IPC, Section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 15, 16, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
5. The investigation was later on transferred to CCB Police i.e., respondent No.1 of which respondent Nos.2 and 3 were directed to investigate Crime No.229/2020 and Crime No.195/2020 respectively.
6. During the course of investigation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 arrested several persons, recorded their voluntarily statements and on the basis of the said statements, sought for search warrants under Section 93 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) to search three offices of the petitioner (Crime No.229/2020 and Crime No.195/2020).
7. The said request for search warrant was accepted by the Sessions Court, warrant had been issued and thereafter searches were conducted and mahazars were drawn up.
8. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court contending that:
8.1. the entire process resorted to by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are only to defame the petitioner.
8.2. There is no offence committed by the petitioner-organization or its officers.
8.3. The procedure prescribed under Section 93 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed.
8.4. The representatives of the petitioner are in touch with the Investigating Officers, they have cooperated with the Investigating Officers. At the most, notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. could have been issued instead of a search warrant under Section 93 of Cr.P.C.
8.5. The Investigating Officer having resorting to and requisitioning a search warrant under Section 93 of Cr.P.C. is completely unwarranted.
8.6. The Sessions Court ought to have considered that a notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to produce necessary documents and/or record the statements of the petitioner would have sufficed in the circumstances of the case.
9. Notice having been issued, the respondent has entered appearance and filed its detailed objection statements. In the said objection statement, it is contended that:
9.1. The order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Special Judge, NIA Cases, Bangalore, issuing warrant of search is proper and correct and it does not suffer from any legal infirmities.
9.2. The investigation in Crime No.229/2020 and Crime No.195/2020 has been transferred from CCB to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) pursuant to order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. Pursuant thereto Crime No.229/2020 is registered in RC No.35/2020/NIA/DLI and Crime No.195/2020 is registered as RC No.34/2020/NIA/DLI and it is NIA which is carrying out the investigation and not respondent No.3 as alleged or otherwise.
9.3. It is stated that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inas
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
