Rahulkumar S/O Mithilesh Singh vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The primary issue was whether there was sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 201, and 212 of the IPC and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act. The Court found that the prosecution's case heavily relied on the voluntary statement of accused No. 1. However, the Court noted that there was no recovery made at the instance of accused No. 1 based on this statement. Therefore, the statement was inadmissible as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, with no exception under Section 27. The Court also considered the statements of CWs.7 and 8, which indicated that the petitioner's brother stayed with him and that the petitioner had advised him not to go out at night. These statements, coupled with newspaper reports about the offence, only created suspicion, not grave suspicion, about the petitioner's knowledge or involvement. The Court, referencing the Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi case, held that for Section 212 of the IPC to apply, the petitioner must have had knowledge or reason to believe that his brother was committing an offence and still harbored him. The evidence presented was insufficient to establish this. Consequently, the Court concluded that the criminal proceedings were initiated on bald suspicion and were not sustainable.

Facts

The petitioner, Rahul Kumar S/o Mithilesh Singh, a Central Excise Inspector, is accused No. 2 in C.C.No.181/2019 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hukkeri. The case involves offences under Sections 420, 201, and 212 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner's brother, accused No. 1, allegedly manipulated ATM cards and withdrew money. Accused No. 1 frequently visited and stayed at the petitioner's official quarters. The prosecution alleges the petitioner harbored accused No. 1, knowing of his misdeeds, based on accused No. 1's voluntary statement and statements from witnesses CWs.7 and 8. The petitioner sought discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the Magistrate. This led to the present writ petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 420, 201, and 212 of the IPC and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act are liable to be quashed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that Sections 420, 201 of IPC, and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act are not attracted. He argued that the prosecution's reliance on accused No. 1's voluntary statement is inadmissible due to Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as there was no recovery based on it as required by Section 27. The statements of CWs.7 and 8 only raised suspicion, not grave suspicion, and therefore, there is no material to connect the petitioner to the alleged offences. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra regarding the scope of discharge powers. Revenue's Arguments: The State argued that serious allegations are made against both accused. The petitioner, as the brother of accused No. 1, harbored him in official quarters, knowing his misdeeds. CWs.7 and 8 provided statements regarding accused No. 1's suspicious conduct and alerted the petitioner. Accused No. 1's voluntary statement specifically implicated the petitioner in the preparation of ATM cards at his house and suggested destroying evidence. The State contended that at this stage, it is not for the court to consider sufficiency of evidence for conviction, but only whether there are sufficient materials to proceed with the trial.