The State Of Maharashtra vs Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee

4. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are   that   on   24th  January,   2018,   a   secret   information   was received by the local police that one Mukesh Pandian, who is a private detective, was obtaining call detail records of different people   and   was   selling   them   in   return   for   hefty   amount   of money. The police caused the arrest of Mukesh Pandian and sought   call   details   of   Vodafone   Company.   First   Information 3 Report,   bearing   No.I­31/18   was   registered   against   Mukesh Pandian   for   offences   punishable   under   Section   420   of   the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 66, 72 and 72(a) of the Information   Technology   Act,   2000.   During   the   investigation, additional offences under Section 26 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 and Sections 201, 171, 467, 468 and 120­B of IPC were added. Later on, police arrested one Prasant Palekar and found   various   mobile   chats   in   his   mobile   including   with Rizwan Alam Siddique (husband of the respondent herein) and other persons. The chat record collected by the police during the investigation, between Rizwan Alam Siddique and Prasant Palekar,   disclosed   that   Rizwan   Alam   Siddique   had   asked Prasant   Palekar   for   call   details   record   of   the   wife   of   one Nawazuddin   Siddique,   indicative   of   involvement   of   Rizwan Alam   Siddique   in   the   commission   of   offence.   As   a   result,   a notice was issued to Rizwan Alam Siddique on 14 th February, 2018 under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in response   to   which   he   informed   the   police   that   he   will   be travelling till 21st  February, 2018 and will appear before the 4 police   after   22nd  February,   2018.   As   assured,   Rizwan   Alam Siddique visited the police station on 23 rd  February, 2018 for recording   of   his   statement.   As   the   investigation   progressed, presence of Rizwan Alam Siddique was found to be necessary by the Investigating Officer who, therefore, tried to get in touch with  him   by  sending  messages on his mobile phone  on 15 th March,   2018.   Rizwan   Alam   Siddique   responded   to   the   said messages   and   showed   his   willingness   to   participate   in   the investigation.   However, according  to  the  Investigating   Officer he did not cooperate with the police and for which reason, by way of abundant precaution, on 16 th  March, 2018 the police issued notice under Section 41­A of Cr.P.C. which notice was attempted to be served but refused by Rizwan Alam Siddique. Further,   when   the   Investigating   Officer   along   with   his subordinates went to the premises of Rizwan Alam Siddique to serve the said notice, it transpired that Rizwan Alam Siddique was destroying the evidence in his mobile phone as well as in his   laptop   and,   therefore,   the   Investigating   Officer   took   a conscious decision to arrest him by taking assistance from the 5 nearest   police   station   i.e.   Versova   Police   Station.   After   his arrest, he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 17th  March,   2018   within   the   statutory   period.   The jurisdictional   Magistrate   gave   the   police   custody   of   Rizwan Alam   Siddique   until   23rd  March,   2018       after   recording   his satisfaction for such police remand.

5. The respondent, however, rushed to the High Court and filed   a   writ   petition   on   18th/19th  March,   2018,   being   Writ Petition   No.1353/2018   praying   for   a   direction   to   the appellants   (respondents   in   the   writ   petition)   to   produce   her husband   before   the   Court   and   to   justify   his   detention   in accordance with procedure established by law. Further relief claimed   was   to   set   her   husband   Rizwan   Alam   Siddique   at liberty.     The   writ   petition   was   moved   on   20 th  March,   2018 when the Court in its order recorded as follows:

Therefore,   until   the   person   fails   to   comply   with   the terms of notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been   passed   by   the   competent   Court   in   this   behalf, unable to arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice. If there was compliance with the notice by the petitioner's   husband,   then,   no   question   arises, according   to   Mr.   Merchant,   of   presentation   of   such petition, but it is the respondents' assertion that when they   sought   to   serve   this   notice   on   the   petitioner's husband, he refused. That is how the panchanama is drawn.

12. As aforesaid, even though this appeal succeeds, since the respondent’s husband Rizwan Alam Siddique has already been released   after   the   impugned   judgment,   the   Investigating Officer may proceed against him in connection with the stated crime   registered   as   FIR   No.I­31/2018   strictly   in   accordance with law and not merely because the impugned order has been set aside.   We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion   regarding   the   guilt   or   otherwise   of   the   respondent’s husband or correctness of the charges levelled against him.

13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

.………………………….CJI.

September 05, 2018.