SC rebukes HC for quashing probe into 'defrauding' British taxidermist

Apex Court sets aside High Court order dismissing FIR

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rebuked the High Court of Karnataka for going “beyond its power and jurisdiction” to quash an investigation into alleged defrauding of more than Rs 500 crore worth properties of world-renowned Mysuru-based taxidermist Edwin Joubert Van Ingen.

Acting on a plea by Tilly Gifford, who identified herself as the niece of Van Ingen, a three-judge bench presided over by Justice Ranjan Gogoi set aside the high court  order of June 19, 2014. The high court had quashed an FIR lodged in March 2013 against Michael Floyd Eshwer, who claimed to be an adopted son of Van Ingen and thus the legal heir of the properties.

Van Ingen, a British national, died a bachelor at the age of 101 on March 12, 2013. Just before his death, he had lodged the FIR against Eshwer alleging cheating, fraud and forgery after he realised that some of his properties were  taken over by Eshwer.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Eshwer, argued forcefully to contend that the high court’s decision was justified in view of statements of police officers which, he claimed, showed discrepancy with regard to allegations. He said Van Ingen never made any complaint against his client in his life time between 2005 and 2013 as he was looked after well by him.

“Instead of signed copy of complaint, a notarised photocopy was turned into the FIR in the case. This leads to strong suspicion that it was filed after Van Ingen's death,” Jethmalani claimed.

The bench, also comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Navin Sinha, told the counsel, “All these things can be argued before the trial court. You can apply for discharge. Why should we interdict investigation at this stage? Look at what the HC has done in this case!”

“Time and again, it has been emphasised that exercise of power under Section 482 (for quashing of an FIR) of the Criminal Procedure Code would not permit to go into the disputed question of facts. Power (of the HC) to interdict investigation is rare. Unless tainted by mala fide, the investigation should not be foreclosed,” the bench said.

The apex court noted that the high court interdicted the investigation by unreasoned order and released the detailed order 10 months later.

The apex court also relied upon the CID investigation undertaken by the DG, which purportedly cast aspersions on the police officers over their dubious role into the whole episode.

 Advocate Joseph Aristotle, appearing for the Karnataka government, submitted that the CID inquiry report showed procedural lapses on part of the police. He said the original complaint was misplaced by the Station House Officer G M Mohan.

Concurring with his plea, the bench said, “Mohan was the police officer who handed over keys of the house to Eshwer.” The court dismissed a separate plea filed by Mohan over some adverse remarks by the high court against him.

The apex court said the investigation into the FIR as well as inquiry against the police officer must be allowed to continue.

The high court, while quashing the FIR on June 19, 2014 at the preliminary stage of the investigation on the compliant, also directed the state government for restoration of possession of the ‘Bissal Munti House’, and 220 acres of plantation and wildlife trophies of the taxidermist with Eshwer.

Gifford, herself a French national, approached the apex court, challenging the high court order. She contended the properties cannot be transferred in the name of the accused without obtaining mandatory permission from the RBI since Van Ingen was a British national till his death.