Rahulkumar S/O Mithilesh Singh vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court held that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner were liable to be quashed. The primary basis for implicating the petitioner under Section 212 of IPC was 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 under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which provides an exception for recoveries, was not applicable. The Court also considered the statements of CWs.11 and 12, which indicated that accused No. 1 stayed with the petitioner and that the petitioner had advised him not to go out at night. These witnesses also suspected that the petitioner might have allowed accused No. 1 to stay knowing about the offence. However, the Court found these statements insufficient to establish that the petitioner had knowledge or reason to believe that his brother was committing an offence and still harboured him, as required by Section 212 of IPC. The Court concluded that the criminal proceedings were based on bald suspicion and not on sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner, thus allowing the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, a Central Excise Inspector, is accused No. 2 in a criminal case (C.C.No.180/2019) for 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 case stems from FIR No.179/2018, initially registered against unknown persons for offences under Section 420 of IPC and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act. Investigation revealed that accused No. 1, the petitioner's brother, was manipulating ATM cards and withdrawing money. The petitioner was implicated as accused No. 2 because accused No. 1 frequently visited and stayed at his official quarters. The petitioner's application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was rejected by the Magistrate. He then filed this 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 only basis for implicating him for harbouring the offender (accused No. 1) under Section 212 of IPC is the voluntary statement of accused No. 1, which is inadmissible due to Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as there was no recovery based on it. He further argued that statements from witnesses CWs.11 and 12 only raised suspicion and did not establish his knowledge of accused No. 1's misdeeds. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra regarding the standard for proceeding against an accused. Respondent's (State) arguments: The State argued that serious allegations were made against both accused. They contended that the petitioner, as the brother of accused No. 1, harboured him in his official quarters, knowing about his misdeeds. They relied on the voluntary statement of accused No. 1, which allegedly stated that preparations for the offence were made in the petitioner's house and that the petitioner suggested destroying evidence. The State also pointed to the statements of CWs.11 and 12 regarding suspicious conduct and alerted the petitioner. They argued that at this stage, the court cannot consider whether there is sufficient material for conviction, only whether there are sufficient materials to proceed with the trial.