B. Rajagopal and Another vs The Inspector of Police (Crimes), Madras and Others

Kanakaraj, J.—The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus to forbear the Respondents or their subordinate officers, from

effecting arrest of the Petitioners on complaints regarding non-payment of deposits by M/s. Danalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd. From the array of

Respondents, it is seen that apart from the Inspector General of police (Crime), Madras, Directors General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka

and Kerala have also been impleaded. In other words, the Petitioners seek a blanket order to forbear all the Respondents from arresting the

Petitioners in respect of nonpayment of deposits by M/s. Dhanalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is

stated that the Petitioners are Directors and share-holders of M/s. Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Industrial Ltd. It is admitted that another Company

M/s. Dhanalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd. is facing financial crisis. Based on certain Newspaper reports that M/s. Dhanalakshmi Consolidates

Industries Ltd. is only a sister-concern of M/s. Dhanalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd. several creditors of both companies were agitated and had been

harassing the Petitioners. It is the case of the Petitioners that none of the Directors of the Company called M/s. Dhanalakshmi Consolidates

Industries Ltd. are Directors of M/s. Dhanalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd. The Petitioners were arrested on certain complaints lodged in Crime No. 14

of 1989. The arrest was contrary to the orders of anticipatory bail granted on 23.5.1989 in Crl. M.P. No. 6384 of 1989 and 6611 of 1989.

However, the Petitioners obtained bail and were released on 5.6.1989 in pursuance of the orders of this Court in Crl. M.P. No. 6648 of 1989.

The grievance of the Petitioners in this writ petition is that based on the Newspaper reports and the arrest of the Petitioners, on the basis of one

complaint, a general chain reaction has been set in motion and a series of complaints are being filed not only in the State of Tamil Nadu but in the

State of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. This is because the Company M/s. Dhanalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd., has branches all over the

southern states. The Petitioners claimed to be respectable citizens and permanent residents of Madras and Hyderabad and in as much as they had

once been arrested and released on bail subject to certain conditions, they should not be Harassed by subsequent arrests on the basis of

subsequent complaints. It is under these circumstances, the Petitioners have come forward with the prayer already referred to.

On notice of motion, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents states that the second Petitioner is a permanent resident of Hyderabad and

several complaints have been received in the State of Andhra Pradesh wherein the allegations are that the Petitioners had cheated the depositors.

The allegations are that M/s. Dhanalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd., was given out to be a company coming under M/s. Dhanalakshmi Group

Companies, that even though the Petitioners are not Directors of M/s. Dhanalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd., they are swallowing the entire deposits

made by several persons in M/s. Dhanalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd., that for the purpose of investigating complaints, it will certainly be necessary to

cause the arrest of the Petitioner. It is also pointed out that the fact that Madras Police have arrested the Petitioners and this Court has granted bail

on certain conditions, will not be of any help to the Police Authorities in the other States. It may be necessary for the Police Authorities in the other

States to cause the arrest of the Petitioners for the purpose of completing the investigation of the several complaints.

I am certainly not going into the allegations and counter allegations. The question is whether on the facts and circumstances, a blanket writ or

direction can be issued in the manner sought for. Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has cited before me a Full

Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Lal Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . The Full Bench was considering

applications u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the First Information Report and the investigation on the basis of such a

report. A second direction was sought for to release the goods seized from the applicants. The third direction which was sought for, and which is

relevant for the purpose of this case, was a direction not to arrest the applicants in pursuance of the First Information Report. The Full Bench after

referring to all the decisions on Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, after the amendment as well as the decisions u/s 561-A, Code of

Criminal Procedure, prior to amendment, came to the conclusion that the High Court has no inherent power u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure

to interfere with the investigation by the Police. They then proceeded to extract Section 41(1)(a) Code of Criminal Procedure and held that the

High Court has no inherent power to interfere with the arrest of a person by a Police Officer, even if it is in violation of Section 41(1)(a), Code of

Criminal Procedure. The last observation which is relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is as follows:

If the High Court is convinced that the power of arrest by a Police Officer will be exercised wrongly or mala fide in violation of Section 41(1)(a),

Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution restraining the Police

Officer from misusing his legal power.

It is on the basis of the said observation that the learned Counsel for the Petitioners says that the writ petition is maintainable having regard to the

peculiar circumstances of the case. I am unable to persuade myself to come to this conclusion. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court

definitely expressed the opinion that in proceedings u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court had no power to interfere with the arrest

of a person by a Police Officer. While meeting the argument that if no offence is disclosed in the First Information Report or when the investigation

is mala fide, the Full Bench pointed out that the power u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure comes into play only after the charge-sheet had been

filed into Court and not during investigation. It is under these circumstances, the Full Bench added the sentence already quoted above. Therefore, if

in a particular case, the High Court is convinced that the power of arrest by the Police Officer will be exercised wrongly or in violation of Section

41(1)(a), Code of Criminal Procedure it is open to the Court to entertain a wit petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. First of all,

the said observation is only by way of obiter dictum. Secondly, it is certainly not possible for me, from the materials placed on record, to come to

the conclusion that the respective Police Officers will act in violation of Section 41(1)(a), Code of Criminal Procedure Prima facie, I am satisfied

that the allegations are serious and a thorough investigation is certainly called for. The difficulty expressed on behalf of the Petitioners that they are

being harassed by several complaints and that they cannot be arrested every time is certainly not a ground to entertain the writ petition. A person

who has involved himself in a big way has to face the music in a big way if something goes wrong in his involvement. This cannot be helped.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.