Point of Law: Black money transaction - seeking investigation - Orders have been issued by Deputy Inspector General of Police without ascertaining factual details, Petitioner has not made any verification about course of investigation, but made bald averments in writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, CJ.

Instant writ petition has been filed with the prayers to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent, viz., State Police Chief, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram, to take action on Exhibit-P3 representation dated 28.05.2021 submitted by the petitioner, seeking effective investigation in Crime No.146/2021 of Kodakara Police Station, and to entrust the investigation to Crime Branch or constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT), under the supervision of an officer, not below the rank of ADGP.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are, Crime No.146/2021 was registered on the file of Kodakara Police Station under Section 395 of the IPC, in connection with robbery of hawala money, alleged to have been transported from Kozhikode to Kochi, which was meant for election campaigning of a national party in the Kerala Legislative Assembly elections. The crime was registered on the basis of a statement given by one Mr. Shamjeer (the de facto complainant), who was the driver of the car, used for the alleged commission of offence. The crux of the prosecution case is that on 3.4.2021, about 4.40 a.m., while the de facto complainant and his friend were travelling in an Ertiga Car, they were waylaid and attacked by a gang, on the Kodakara Flyover, and took away Rs.25 lakhs, including the car. The injured in the above incident has stated to the police that the amount was entrusted by one Mr. Dharmarajan of Kozhikode.

3. Petitioner has further stated that the investigation conducted by the police discloses that the actual amount was more than Rs.25 lakhs and it was a hawala transaction. An amount of Rs.1 Crore and gold ornaments worth Rs.5 lakhs were already recovered by the police from the accused. It is reported that the actual amount could be Rs.3.50 Crores and the money was meant for BJP Assembly Election Campaigning. While the initial complaint was of theft of Rs.25 lakhs, there are allegations that the car was actually carrying cash worth crores of rupees.

4. Petitioner has further stated that during the course of investigation, several office bearers of a national party were summoned and interrogated, but nobody was arrested till date, except the accused involved in the execution of robbery. As per media reports, the investigation team had questioned the BJP State Organizing Secretary Mr. M. Ganesh and other local leaders, but there is no progress, with regard to the source of hawala money and the persons behind the transactions. Petitioner has also stated that there are allegations that the hawala money came from Karnataka and the same was handed over to the candidates during election campaign.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that though Exhibit-P2 F.I.R was registered, the 3rd respondent has not conducted any investigation in the matter, in order to unearth the entire racket behind the black money transaction. According to the petitioner, the persons involved in the black money transactions are highly influential and the police has not conducted any scientific investigation, such as polygraph and Narco analysis of the suspected persons and has not collected the call detail records of the accused. He also pointed out that hawala money transactions were carried out through a helicopter used for the election campaigning of BJP by its State President.

6. Aggrieved by the alleged faulty investigation, petitioner has preferred Exhibit-P2 complaint before the State Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram, 2nd respondent, pointing out the involvement of culprits and laches in the investigation. However, no action was taken so far. In such circumstances, he has filed this writ petition.

7. In support of the reliefs sought for, petitioner has, inter alia, raised the following grounds:

A. The inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in taking action on Exhibit-P2 complaint is highly illegal and arbitrary, warranting interference of this Court.

B. Facts