Kerala gold smuggling case: Karnataka High Court quashes FIR against Vijesh Pillai

Karnataka high court judge remitted the matter back to the magistrate to pass appropriate orders afresh on the requisition made by the police.

Karnataka High Court (Photo | EPS)

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court quashed an order passed by the magistrate permitting the city police to register a non-cognisable offence against a man identified as Vijesh Pillai, without recording any reasons. A complaint against the man had been filed by Kerala gold smuggling accused Swapna Suresh. 

Justice M Nagaprassana, who allowed the petition filed by Pillai, remitted the matter back to the magistrate to pass appropriate orders afresh on the requisition made by the police. He asked the magistrate to bear in mind the guidelines laid down by him in the verdict. 

Swapna approached the KR Puram police on March 11, 2023, alleging that Pillai had threatened and intimidated her. Following this, the Station House Officer (SHO) sought permission from the Magistrate to register a crime under Section 506 of the IPC which is imperative under Section 155 of CrPC, as it is a NCO. The Magistrate permitted upon the perusal of SHO's requisition.  

Swapna alleged that Pillai had asked her to meet him at a star hotel on Whitefield Main Road on March 4.

He, allegedly, stated that he had been sent by the party (CPI-M) secretary Govindan and offered Rs 30 crores as a final settlement for not giving any statement against the Kerala chief minister and his family members. 

Swapna said that he asked her to leave Bengaluru in a week and go absconding.  

She said that he had threatened her saying he will charge false cases against her by putting contraband in her baggage. He also threatened to kill her, Swapna alleged. 

The court said that the Magistrates have not changed their attitude toward passing callous orders of granting permission which sometimes is only a one-word order “permitted”.

The Magistrates should mend their ways and apply their mind to the requisitions received and then pass appropriate orders, failing which justice to a victim would become illusory, the court observed.

It also issued five guidelines to magistrate courts. 

 5 Guidelines Issued by HC 

1. Magistrates should record who has submitted the requisition whether it is the informant or the SHO in a separate order sheet.
2. Magistrates should not pass any order if the complaint is not enclosed along with the requisition.
3. Magistrates should examine the contents of the requisition and record a prima facie finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated. If it is not, Magistrates should reject the requisition, bearing application of mind by not rendering a detailed order or inquiry.
4. Magistrates should forthwith stop using the words "permitted”, “perused permitted” or “perused requisition permitted registration of FIR” on the requisition itself and maintain a separate order sheet.
5. 5. The Magistrates' order should contain the above guidelines and any violation would be viewed seriously.