T N JAYADEESH DEVIDAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure by the second accused in Crime No. 757 of 1978 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, to quash the order passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Eranakulam, to quash the order passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Eranakulam, directing the petitioner to appear in his court on 15-3-1979 to be placed in the custody of the police for a period of four days from 15-3-1979 noon till 19-3-1979 noon.

(2.) THE circumstances under which this petition has been filed are as follows : Crime No. 757 of 1978 was registered by the police against the petitioner and another person for offences punishable under sections 419, 420 and 471, read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. THE accusation against the accused is that they forged certain documents and cheated the andhra Bank to the tune of Rs. 500/- and took delivery of certain steel items meant for some other consignee. It was further alleged that the steel items were subsequently sold by the accused persons to some other dealers. THE occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 28-9-1978 and the crime was registered on 8-10-1978. When the petitioner learnt about the registration of the crime, he surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on 21-12-1978 and moved for bail. He was released on bail on the same day. Subsequently on the request made by the investigating officer, the Chief judicial Magistrate directed the petitioner to appear before the officer for interrogation in connection with the investigation of the case. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner appeared before the officer on 3-1-1979 and he was interrogated by the head constable attached to the Central Police stable attached to the Central Police Station. It was thereafter that the investigating officer submitted a further report requesting the Court that the petitioner be remanded to custody of the police to enable him to effect certain recoveries on information to be furnished by the petitioner. THE petitioner objected to this request. THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, allowed the petition and passed an order which is under attack in this petition.

(3.) FROM the materials available it is clear that the specific purpose for which handing over of the petitioner to the police custody is sought, is to make "an effective recovery under section 27 of the evidence Act. " Apart from the constitutional guarantees available to an accused person, I have no hesitation to hold that to accede to the request now made in the petition by the investigating officer would be lending the assistance of this Court to aid the police to bring pressure on the accused person to extract information from him which he voluntarily is not prepared to give or bound to give. There is no obligation on the part of the accused person to make any statement to the police. He can always keep his mouth shut. The police cannot compel him to make any statement. In this case, the petitioner has made it abundantly clear that he has no further information with him to be passed on to the police regarding any recovery except that was given by him to the police. Under these circumstances, to file a petition to persuade the Court with the avowed object of getting the petitioner into custody is nothing more than an abuse of the process of Court and this can never be countenanced in law.