Kerala High Court: In a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court (‘Magistrate’), wherein the Court rejected DBS Bank’s application seeking registration of FIR, stating lack of jurisdiction, the Single Judge bench of Dr Kauser Edappagath, J., while setting aside the impugned order, held that the case clearly falls under Section of (‘BNSS’) which the Magistrate overlooked.Thus, the Court directed the Magistrate to reconsider DBS Bank’s application in light of this judgment and pass fresh orders as per law.
Background
DBS Bank extended its financial facilities to customers under various finance schemes, including the Jewel Deposit Loan (‘JDL’). An FIR (‘initial FIR’) was registered against the accused, a Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, under Section of the (‘IPC’) on the allegation that he replaced 26,244.20 grams of gold jewels worth approximately Rs. 17 crores with counterfeit gold jewels, that had been pledged for obtaining loans by customers of Bank of Maharashtra. During the investigation, it was found that some parts of the misappropriated gold jewels were in the custody of the DBS Bank at the Tiruppur Branch and Kangayam Road Branch as they had been pledged by its customers for availing loan under the JDL facility.Consequently, after conducting a search and seizure, those gold ornaments were seized.
Pursuant to this, DBS Bank approached the Tiruppur Police Station to register an FIR against 56 of its customers, who had availed JDL facility, for criminal conspiracy and cheating. When there was no response, the DBS Bank complained to the Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur. However, the Commissioner refused to register an FIR and directed the Bank to approach Vatakara Police Station on the ground that the initial FIR had already been registered against the accused. Thereafter, the Bank approached the SHO, Vatakara Police Station seeking registration of FIR under Sections , read with Section of the (‘BNS’). Upon receiving no response, the Bank approached the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode, but received no response yet again.
Due to this, the Bank filed an application under Section 173(4) read with Section of before the Magistrate, seeking registration of FIR. The Magistrate vide the impugned order, rejected the application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this, the Bank filed the present writ petition.
Analysis
The Court noted that the Magistrate seems to have the view that since the alleged offence of cheating had taken place within the State of Tamil Nadu, only the courts of Tamil Nadu will have the jurisdiction.
The Court stated that the implementation of Section of marks a significant shift in how the police handles information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, as Zero FIR has now been given statutory recognition in Section 173. The Court stated that Zero FIR was introduced with the primary purpose of ensuring that victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction. Further, the Court stated that as per Section of , the police have to register an FIR upon receiving any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where it is committed.
Upon perusal of Section 173(3) and (4), the Court held that Vatakara police ought to have acted upon the DBS Bank’s complaint since it disclosed facts and circumstances which make out an offence of criminal conspiracy to cheat it, i.e., the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court noted that these facts and circumstances have been reiterated in the DBS Bank’s application, however, the Magistrate failed to take note of them and rejected the application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The Court also noted that there was clear averment in the DBS Bank’s application that the cheated money had been transferred from its 56 customers to the bank accounts of the accused persons whose bank accounts are located in Vatakara. There was another clear averment that the cause of action arose initially in Tamil Nadu when the gold loans were sanctioned and then arose again in Kerala when the gold loan amount was transferred to the bank accounts located in Vatakara. Additionally, the gold jewels seized from the DBS Bank and its cheated money fell within the jurisdiction of Vatakara Police Station.
Delving into Section of , which deals with the place of trial where an act is an offence because of its relation to another offence, the Court said that the relation between ‘the first mentioned offence’ and the other offence is a logical relationship, not a chronological sequence. The Court reiterated that the underlying principle is that the act must be an offence because of its relation to any other act which is also an offence. Thus, this relation brings the Section into operation and gives jurisdiction to the Courts in both areas where either of the acts has occurred.
Further, the Court agreed with DBS Bank’s contention that the act of ‘pledging’ alone is not an offence, but it became an offence because of the act and offence registered at Vatakara police station under Section of , i.e., the property which was involved in criminal breach of trust case had been pledged and loan under JDL Scheme had been availed. The offence of cheating under Section of became dependent on the offence of criminal misappropriation under Section of . Thus, the offence of criminal conspiracy that had taken place against the DBS Bank comes under the category of ‘part of same transaction’ of the main crime.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court held that these facts make it clear that the case falls within the ambit of Section of . Thus, the Vatakara police have jurisdiction to investigate the alleged offence of criminal conspiracy and cheating.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order as unsustainable and directed the Magistrate to reconsider DBS Bank’s application in light of this judgment and pass fresh orders as per law.
[DBS Bank India Ltd v. State of Kerala, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1159 of 2024, decided on 02-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Anshuman Sinha, Senior Advocate, Ramakrishnan M.N.
For the respondent: Advocate General Office Kerala, Director General of Prosecution, P. Narayanan, Senior Government Pleader, Additional Public Prosecutor, and Sajju. S., Senior Government Pleader
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .