Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23595
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SHOUKATHALI M.M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 1097 2023
T.MADHU C.R.SARADAMANI RENJISH S. MENON AISWARYA JAYAPAL VRINDA T.S.
Legal procedures under Cr.P.C. regarding arrests must be scrupulously followed to ensure justice and prevent arbitrary detention.
Headnote:
Arrest - Writ Petition - Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act 2019 - Cr.P.C. 41A - Summary: The court addressed the legality of the petitioner's arrest under multiple FIRs, highlighting the necessary procedures under the Cr.P.C., particularly Section 41A, emphasizing judicial scrutiny and consolidation of cases to uphold justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with numerous cases relating to Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd. and sought to declare the arrest illegal, claiming no connection to the company and appealed for consolidation of FIRs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's claims, allowing similar relief as previously ordered in a related judgment and ensuring adherence to legal provisions regarding arrests.
Issues: Whether the arrest was lawful and if the FIRs could be consolidated, along with the proper procedure under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that legal provisions in securing arrest and investigation must be adhered to, ensuring justice by scrutinizing the need for detention.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with specific directions concerning the documentation of arrests and the application of due legal processes for future FIRs.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition(Crl) is filed seeking the following prayers:- i. Declare that the arrest of the petitioner in crimes relating to complaints in connection with Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd is illegal for the reason that the petitioner is not an ofÏce bearer, employee or otherwise connected with the above company, so as to secure the ends of justice.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction order directing the respondents to consolidates all the FIRS relating to complaints against the petitioner in connection with Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd. by treating the FIR registered at the first in time as the FIR as the crime, as was done in the decisions of Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of U UP reported in. 2021 SCC online SC 3459 and Digihome Solutions Private Ltd. Vs. Continental Device India Ltd. reported in 2015 SCC online P&H 2261, so as to secure the ends of justice.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction order directing the respondents to take steps for transfer of all cases to the Designated Court constituted under the provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme
2019.
(iv) Direct the respondents to issue notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the crimes if any to be registered in connection with the affairs of the Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is in custody from 5/1/2023 in connection with a series of cases registered under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act , 2019. Out of the 139 crimes registered, the arrest of the petitioner was recorded in 138 crimes is the submission. It is also submitted that several bail applications were allowed by this Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that the cases are registered continuously and the petitioner is not able to come out of the jail. The petitioner is relying Ext.P3 judgment and submitted that a similar order may be passed in this case also.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor.
4. After going through Ext.P3 judgment, I think a similar order can be passed in this case also.
5. Therefore, this writ petition(crl) is disposed of with the following directions:-
1. There will be a direction to the respondents to record the arrest of the petitioner in all crimes already registered against him as on this date, if it is not already recorded, within an outer period of ten days from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this judgment.
2. In all crimes registered hereafter alleging offences and circumstances of a similar nature as those of the crimes already registered, the procedure contemplated under section 41A Cr.P.C. shall be followed, subject to the exception carved out under clause (3) below.
3. If circumstances exist where the investigating ofÏcer requires the arrest of the petitioner in crimes to be registered hereafter, the directions inArnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [(2014) 8 SCC 273] and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another [(2022) 10 SCC 51], and the provisions of Section 41(1)(ii) Cr.P.C shall scrupulously be complied with. Further, the Magistrate concerned shall scrutinize the need for any detention in such cases with the seriousness it deserves and not in a routine manner.
