IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J.
DBS Bank India Ltd - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Kerala, Through Chief Secretary And Ors. – Respondents
WP(CRL.) NO. 1159 OF 2024
Decided On : 02-12-2024
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Sections 173(4), 200 - Criminal conspiracy and cheating - Petitioner Bank sought registration of FIR against customers for misappropriation of pledged gold jewels - Magistrate rejected application citing lack of jurisdiction - Court held that jurisdiction exists as offences occurred partly in different local areas, directing reconsideration of the application. (Paras 2, 6, 7, 9)
(B) Jurisdiction - The principle of jurisdiction in cognizable offences allows for FIR registration irrespective of where the offence occurred, ensuring victims can file complaints without jurisdictional barriers. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner Bank alleged that its customers pledged counterfeit gold jewels for loans, leading to a complaint against them after a police investigation revealed misappropriation.
Findings of Court:
The learned Magistrate's order was set aside, directing a fresh consideration of the FIR registration application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Vatakara Police had jurisdiction to register the FIR based on the facts presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that jurisdiction for cognizable offences should not be limited by territorial boundaries, allowing for FIR registration based on the nature of the offence and its relation to other acts.
Result: The impugned order was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to reconsider the application.
JUDGMENT :
Kauser Edappagath, J.
The petitioner is a banking company registered under the Companies Act 2013, having its registered office in New Delhi, Corporate Office in Mumbai, and branches all over India. The petitioner Bank is engaged inter alia in the business of extending financial facilities to customers under various finance schemes including Jewel Deposit Loan (for short, 'JDL') through outsourcing agencies for sourcing different types of loans from prospective customers.
2. The Vatakara Police Station registered Ext.P3 F.I.R. as Crime No.880/2024 against one Madhajayakumar, who was the Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Vatakara Branch for the offence under Section 409 of the IPC alleging that he replaced 26,244.20 grams of gold jewels worth Rs.17,20,35,717/- in 42 accounts with counterfeit gold jewels, that had been pledged for obtaining loans by customers of Bank of Maharashtra. After the registration of the crime, the Vatakara police conducted a search and seizure on the premises of the petitioner Bank, Tiruppur Branch and Kanagayam Road Branch, on 22/08/2024, 23/08/2024, 08/10/2024, and 09/10/2024 and seized gold jewels worth more than Rs.5.98 crores, on the ground that those gold jewels are ‘stolen property’ and are the subject matter of Crime No.880/2024. According to the police, some portion of the gold jewels misappropriated by the accused in Crime No.880/2024 have been pledged by the customers to the petitioner bank and availed JDL facility. Pursuant to the said search and seizure, the petitioner Bank approached the Tiruppur police station in Tamil Nadu and filed a complaint seeking registration of F.I.R. against its 56 customers who pledged the gold jewels and availed JDL facility for the offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating. When there was no response, the petitioner Bank made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur. However, the Commissioner of Police refused to register F.I.R. and directed the petitioner Bank to approach Vatakara Police Station for redressal of their grievances on the ground that Ext.P3 F.I.R. had already been registered. Ext.P1 is the communication given by the Commissioner of Police in this regard. The petitioner Bank thereafter approached SHO, Vatakara Police Station vide Ext.P4 complaint dated 11.10.2024 seeking registration of F.I.R. for offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal conspiracy under Sections 318(4), 319(2) r/w 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, 'the BNS'). Since there was no response from the SHO, Vatakara, the petitioner Bank approached the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kozhikode on 15.10.2024. Still, there was no response. The petitioner Bank then filed Ext.P6 application before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara, invoking Section 173(4) r/w Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, 'the BNSS') seeking registration of F.I.R. The learned Magistrate, as per Ext.P7 order, returned the application on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. It was found that the Tamil Nadu Police Station has the jurisdiction to deal with the offence of cheating. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P7 order. There is a further prayer to direct the SHO, Vatakara Police Station to register the F.I.R. on the basis of the complaint preferred by the petitioner Bank, or in the alternative, to add the wrongdoers as additional accused in FIR bearing Crime No. 880/2024.
3. I have heard Sri. Anshuman Sinha, the learned Senior counsel, as instructed by Sri. Ramakrishnan M.N., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Bank and Sri. P. Narayanan, the learned Senior Additional Public Prosecutor.
4. As stated already, Ext.P3 F.I.R. was registered on the allegation that the accused therein misappropriated gold ornaments weighing 26244.20 grams worth Rs.17,20,35,717 pledged in the Bank of Maharashtra for the period from 13.06.2024 to 6.7.2024 and put imitation gold ornaments in the pl
Jurisdiction for FIR registration in cognizable offences is not limited by territorial boundaries, allowing for complaints to be filed regardless of where the offence occurred.
Judicial Magistrates must apply scrutiny before directing FIR registration to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system in familial disputes.
Criminal conspiracy in terms of Section 120-B of the Code is an independent offence. It is punishable separately.
Direction for Police investigation – In family disputes triable by Magistrates, especially those involving close relatives, Magistrates should strive to nurture an environment conducive to preserving....
Cheating - Quash of FIR and Proceeding - Complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available, is not by itself a ground to quash criminal procee....
The Reserve Bank of India's guidelines do not confer jurisdiction upon the CBI to investigate bank fraud without prior state consent as mandated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
Prospective accused lack locus standi to challenge an order directing F.I.R. registration before cognizance is taken, validating the inherent jurisdiction limitations as per Section 528 and Section 1....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.