Fake Antique Dealer Case: Police Objects To CBI's Involvement In Investigation Before Kerala High Court

In its affidavit filed before the Kerala High Court, the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes) has submitted that the involvement of CBI to probe into the allegations made against fake antique dealer Monson Mavunkal was unnecessary.

The affidavit was filed in a petition filed by the dealer's former driver, who had alleged harassment from his ex-employer and certain police officers close to him.

• No Complaint Regarding Ongoing Investigation

The affidavit stated that as per the orders of the Court, the State Police Chief had filed an exhaustive affidavit redressing every allegation on the writ petition as well as the queries posed by the Court.

In the said affidavit, the State Police Chief had also mentioned that a Special Investigation Team had been constituted to probe into the financial fraud allegations against Mavunkal. 

"Thus, in so far as the ongoing investigations are concerned, there is absolutely no complaint from any corners."

The ADGP reiterated in his affidavit that there will not be any harassment against the petitioner from the police in violation of statutory provisions. 

However, it was stated that since the petitioner herein was associated with Mavunkal till recently, there were allegations against him as well which called for an investigation. Accordingly, it was submitted that the petitioner may have to face questioning and recording of statements as usual and necessary procedures in such cases.

• No Material Proving Involvement of Expatriates

The High Court while hearing the matter previously had required an assurance from the State Police Chief if the police investigation would be effective considering allegations made against officers of several ranks. On this aspect, it was stated that there were no materials to show that any allegations were levelled against any high ranking police officers above the rank of Commissioner of Police.

The Court had also noted that it was in the public domain that an association of expatriates is involved in the manner and that the report of the respondents did not contain a whisper of the same. 

Regarding this, the affidavit responded:

"..there is absolutely no material before the Court to show that the involvement of an association of expatriate was in the public domain or not. There may be many things in the public domain in connection with the affairs of the 5th respondent (Mavunkal), both facts and fiction. The official respondents were actually in a highly disadvantageous position to respond to the issues stated to be in the public domain as those issued are not borne out by the pleadings in the writ petition." 

• No Need For An External Agency for Investigation

The Court had also observed in one of its earlier orders that there appears to be much more than what meets the eye and suggested that the Enforcement Directorate may probe into the matter.

The ADGP submitted that the SIT will leave no stone unturned in unearthing the truth of all the allegations that emerged and that there was no need for any external agency to step in. 

At this juncture, queries regarding the alleged inaction of the State Police to initiate proceedings under the Antiquities and Art treasures Act, 1972 has spread across the bar. Clarifying this aspect, the affidavit disclosed that the State Police was not competent to investigate on its own any offences under this Act as per Sections 25 and 26 therein.

"In view of the first schedule of CrPC, the offences mentioned under subsection 2 of Section 25 are non-cognizable and therefore the police cannot conduct investigation on its own."

• Discussing Matters Beyond Pleadings Detrimental To Effective Investigation

Moreover, it was pointed out that matters beyond the pleadings of the petitioner were being taken up and discussed by the court and that this was likely to affect the ongoing investigation. The affidavit also argued and that this could benefit the accused in the matter. 

"Any open discussion or consideration of critical information and leads in the ongoing investigation will provide undue advantage to the accused and thereby the criminal investigation now undertaken by the police itself would be put to peril."

When the Joint Director of the ED was impleaded, the Central Government Counsel appeared on behalf of him had submitted that although an ECIR had been registered in the matter, the ED only had the jurisdiction to track the financial trail of the alleged scam and that for the other offences, the CBI may have to step in. 

The ADGP objected to the same saying the entry of ED and its over-enthusiasm displayed by proposing to bring the CBI into the picture cannot be viewed lightly and was alleged to be a motivated statement.

It was also argued that the posture of the ED in the recent past against the State Government in certain cases are against the basic tenets of the federal system, which is an inalienable part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

"No one can be oblivious of the fact that the present crimes registered against the 5th respondent are all relating to complaints of cheating and allied offences raised by private parties, who have not hitherto voiced any objection regarding the investigation of any crimes as against 5th respondent." 

There was also a submission to the effect that nobody but the Court had raised the question of probing into the violations of the said Act and that the involvement of CBI was unnecessary in the investigation. 

"When the State Police is conducting the investigation on all angles and there is no allegation as against the police in this respect, the request to bring in outside agency may amount to interfering with Constitutional freedom and structure in a federal polity."

It was also submitted that it is trite and settled law that there cannot be any fishing or roving enquiry in the matter of investigation of criminal cases as repeatedly held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. During the ongoing investigation, if any news offence is disclosed or that other persons are found involved, the investigation agency will definitely proceed in that direction.  

"CBI as an investigating agency wields the same powers and discharges exactly the same functions as that of the State Police. State Police is eminently competent and effective to investigate criminal cases." 

• Grievance In Pleadings Already Redressed

The affidavit pointed out that the grievance of the petitioner had been completely redressed by an undertaking given by the respondents that he will not be harassed in any manner and that the police will act only in accordance with the procedure established by law. 

It was also stated in the affidavit that if the circumstances warrant, the petitioner may also be issued with a notice under Section 160 or 41A CrPC. As such, it was submitted that nothing survives in the matter and that no other order was required to be issued in the petition 

On the said grounds, the ADGP has prayed that the petition be closed recording this undertaking given by the Police. 

Case Title: Ajith E.V. v. The Commissioner of Police & Ors.