W.P.C. Nos. 17410/11 & con. cases

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17410 of 2011(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. BIJESH.V.S,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN,VADERIYATTIL HOUSE,PO MUNDUR, THRISSUR 680 541. 2. PREMDAS.P.B,AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN,PAZHAMUKKU HOUSE,'ASWATHY', PO MUNDUR,THRISSUR 680 541. 3. SUBASH.V.B,AGED 25 YEARS, - S/O.BHASKARAN,VELUTHUR HOUSE,VELUTHUR PO, THRISSUR 680 016. 4. PRAVEEN KUMAR.K, AGED 25 YEARS, - S/O.SANKARANKUTTY,KUNDILMADAM HOUSE,VELUTHUR PO, THRISSUR 680 016. 5. MIDHUN.M.M.,AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.MOHANAN, MADAVAKKARA HOUSE, PO CHITTISSERI,THRISSUR 680301. 6. LIJO.K.V,AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.VARGHESE, KADAKKARAPALLI HOUSE, CHOTTUPARA PO,THRISSUR 680 581. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): - ------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE,AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR. WP(C).No. 17410 of 2011(A) -2- 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,THRISSUR., 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION,THRISSUR. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VIYYOR POLICE STATION,THRISSUR. 6. NANO EXCEL ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD., 145/C,GROUND FLOOR,OPPOSITE SAI BABA TEMPLE, BANGAL RAO NAGAR ,HYDERABAD 53038 REP.BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DR.HAREESH MADDINENI. 7. NANO EXCEL CORPORATION LTD.,NO.308,BDA BUILDING NO.5,JANAKPURI,NEW DELHI 110 058,REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,DR.HAREESH MADDINENI. 8. NANO EXCEL ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD., SOUTH INDIA HEAD OFFICE NO.XXXII/204,UNICHIRA, OPPOSITE JUME MASJID,INJIPARAMBU EDAPPALLY TOLL, CHENGAMPUZHA NAGAR POST,COCHIN-24,REP.BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DR.HAREESH MADDINENI. 9. NANO EXCEL ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE,TMC 36-828,GROUND FLOOR, HARWIN REGENCY,POLIYAM ROAD,THRISSUR 680 001, DISTRICT THRISSUR,REP.BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DR.HAREESH MADDINENI. 10. NANO EXCEL ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE,H.NO.95/1,SEVEN CROSS,NEAR GOVT. MODEL SCHOOL,DOMMULAR VILLAGE,BANGALORE,560 071, REP.BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DR.HAREESH MADDINENI. 11. NANO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,1-98/9/7/H/1, 12-B-1,JAI HIND SOCIETY,MADHAPUR,HYDERABAD 500 081,REP.BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DR.HAREESH MADDINENI. WP(C).No. 17410 of 2011(A) -3- 12. DR.HAREESH MADDINENI,145/C GROUND FLOOR, OPPOSITE SAI BAB TEMPLE,BENGAL RAO NAGAR, HYDERABAD 53038. ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.K.A.JALEEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO.18116 OF 2011 & CON. CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17410 of 2011(A) -4- PETITIONERS' EXTS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE BROUGHT OUT BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT UPS IN THE LEADING DAILIES IN THE STATE. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLES THAT IS PUBLISHED PROMOTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE 12TH RESPONDENT AND THE COMPANY CREATED BY HIM. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE BROUGHT OUT BY THE COMPANY WITH REGARD TO THE CLUB BINARY COMPENSATION PLAN AND ROYALTY CLUB PLAN. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE SAFETY NET PLAN BROUGHT OUT BY THE COMPANY EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE OF THE COMPANY SHOWING THE SIGNING OF THE MOU ## PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. -----------------------------------------------W. P. C. Nos.17410, 17592 & 18116 of 2011 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of July, 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _Pius C. Kuriakose, J_ These Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek identical reliefs on the basis of the homologous allegations. According to the petitioners, they are being harassed by the police officials who are respondents in these Writ Petitions without any justifiable reasons under the guise of investigating into offences committed by respondents 6 to 11 companies and respondent No.12 who is the Managing Director of those companies. It is alleged that respondent Nos.6 to 11 (hereinafter referred to as the “company respondents”) are the promoters of a multilevel marketing scheme of various products of these companies wherein nano technology has W. P. C. No.17410/11 & con. cases -2- been used. It is averred that the 12[th] respondent Managing Director of the company is a medical professional who has won laurels from many including Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, the former President of India for the useful services that he has rendered for the humanity. These Writ Petitions give detailed account of the business activity and the marketing style adopted by respondents 6 to 12. It is stated that the products of the companies are such as bracelets, wrist watches, nano cards, water purifiers, nano power cards etc. According to the petitioners, they have not committed any offences and much less the offences under Section 406 and 420 IPC and also those under Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 alleged to have been committed by the company respondents and the 12[th] respondent. 2. Very extensive submissions were addressed before us by Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W. P. C. No.17410/11 & con. cases -3- these cases. Sri.Rajit drew our attention to the averments in the Writ Petitions and also to the various exhibits produced along with the same. The learned counsel also referred to the statutory provisions especially Sections 2(c) and (e) and also 3, 4, 5(c), 1, 2 and 3 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. According to the learned counsel, offences under Sections 405 and 420 of the IPC cannot lie even for a moment against the petitioner who only accepted various packages such us bracelet package offered by the company to its customers. Sri.Rajit submitted that till this moment none of the petitioners have been named as accused in any crime registered by any police officer in the state. If the presence of any of the petitioners is required by the police investigating into crimes registered against R6 to R12, the petitioners will be all willingness to co-operate. What the petitioners apprehend is that under the guise of questioning them as part of the investigation into W. P. C. No.17410/11 & con. cases -4- crimes committed by others, they will be arrested and detained. When we enquired of Sri.Rajit as to why the petitioners cannot move for anticipatory bail if they really apprehend arrest on the basis of accusations of the cognizable offences Sri.Rajit submitted that if anticipatory bail is to be sought for there must be specific apprehensions regarding arrest in connection with specific offences. In the instant case, there is no such specific apprehension and hence, moving the High Court or the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail many not deliver goods. Sri.Rajit further submitted that aspiring for quick money by itself will not be an offence and in this regard placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar (AIR 1982 SC 949). Sri.Rajit referred to paragraph 4 and particularly to paragraph 7 of the above judgment of the Supreme Court. 3. Sri.K.A.Jaleel, the learned Additional Advocate W. P. C. No.17410/11 & con. cases -5- General would oppose all the submissions of Sri.Rajit. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, from the averments in the Writ Petitions itself it is clear that the petitioners are promoters of the business of respondents 6 to 12. Those respondents are even on the admissions of the petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 apart from the offence under Section 405 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as many as 23 cases have been registered in various police stations in Trichur district in connection with complaints received from persons who have been cheated due to the business conducted by the respondent Nos.6 to 12. According to the Additional Advocate General as per the information so far received ` 300 crores have been collected by these respondents through promoters like the petitioners from innocent public W. P. C. No.17410/11 & con. cases -6- who were lured to join this scheme hoping for easy and quick money. The Vice President of the Company one Patric Thomas has been arrested by the Karnataka Police in connection with Crime No.69/11 and the Kerala Police is seriously thinking in terms of obtaining a production warrant so that custody of the above Patric Thomas can be obtained. Only when the custody of the above Patric Thomas is obtained it will be possible for the state police to get more details regarding the crimes committed by the respondents and the volume of business transacted by them and the extent of money by which the people have been cheated. Sri.Jaleel submitted that the offence committed by respondents 6 to 12 to which the petitioners are privy will shatter the economic fabric of the country. Hence, those offences should be treated as offence against the state itself. Responding to a specific query by us as to whether any of the petitioners before us have been arrayed in any of W. P. C. No.17410/11 & con. cases -7- the cases registered in any of the police stations in the state, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that till this day none of them have been arrayed as accused in any of the cases registered in any of the police stations in the state. But the learned Additional Advocate General insisted that the police requires their attendance for questioning them in connection with the investigation into the crimes already registered. The Additional Advocate General also submitted that notices as contemplated under Section 160 of the Cr. P.C will be issued to the petitioners as at the moment their presence is required only for questioning as witnesses. The Additional Advocate General went on to submit that if during the course of questioning it is revealed that the petitioners are also guilty of the commission of cognizable offences the police may arrest them in which case the provisions of Sections 41(A) to (D) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be followed to the extent W. P. C. No.17410/11 & con. cases -8- applicable. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, there is no question of the police harassing the petitioners. The presence of the petitioners is required only for the specific purpose of questioning them as part of the investigation which is already under way into the crimes registered against respondents 6 to 12 and the promoters of the business of the respective companies. 4. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar by Sri.Rajit and by the Additional Advocate General Sri.Jaleel and having gone through the averments in the Writ Petitions and the various materials placed on record by the petitioners, we feel that the allegations leveled uniformly by the petitioners that the police are harassing them without any justifiable reason is without basis. We are convinced that the police at the moment only wants to question the petitioners in connection with various crimes registered against R6 to R12 and W. P. C. No.17410/11 & con. cases -9- promoters of the money chain business as well as in connection with the money chain marketing scam in which respondents 6 to 12 are obviously involved. We record the submission of the Additional Advocate General that as at the moment none of the petitioners have been arrayed as accused, the police will issue notice to them as contemplated by Section 160 before requesting their attendance. We record the Additional Advocate General's further submission that if it becomes necessary to arrest the petitioners the procedure as provided in Section 41(A) to (D) of the Cr.P.C and other provisions of law to the extent applicable will be adhered to strictly. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. BHAVADASAN JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.17410/11 & con. cases -10-