Kerala High Court
Faisal Fareed vs Union Of India on 7 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:59143
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025/16TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.M.C.NO.6423 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2025 IN CRL.M.P.NO.80 OF 2025 IN
S.C.NO.01/2021/NIA (RC 2/2020/NIA/KOC) OF SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL
OF NIA CASES, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3:
FAISAL FAREED
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.FAREED THEPARAMBIL, THEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEAR PUTHANPALLI, KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR,
KERALA. SETTLED AT VILLA NO.5, AL RASHIDIYA,
DUBAI, UAE, P.O. BOX, PIN - 119231
BY ADV.SRI.MANU TOM
BY ADV.SRI.BALAMURALI K.P.
BY ADV.SMT.HARIPRIYA.M
BY ADV.SRI.AMAL C. PETER
BY ADV.SRI.RENIL IQUBAL K.
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, 28/443, GIRI NAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SMT.O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.6423/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:59143
ORDER
Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioner herein impugns the order dated 05.06.2025 of the
Special Court for trial of NIA Cases, Kerala, Ernakulam in
Crl.M.P.No.80/2025 in S.C.No.01/2021/NIA (RC 2/2020/NIA/KOC), by
which an application filed by him under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [hereinafter referred to as "BNSS"] to
monitor an investigation and to issue directions to the Investigating
Agency to conduct a proper and meaningful investigation, was rejected
by the Special Court.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Crl.M.C. are as
follows:
The petitioner is the 3rd accused in R.C.No.02/2020 of NIA, Kochi
which is being investigated by the National Investigation Agency [NIA].
It is the case of the Investigating Agency that on 05.07.2020, 30.244 kg
of gold of 24 carats valued at Rs.14.82 crores was seized from import
cargo addressed to Rashid Al Khamis, the Charge D' Affaires at the
Consulate General of the United Arab Emirates [UAE] in
Thiruvananthapuram at the Air Cargo Complex of Trivandrum
International Airport by the Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate,
Crl.M.C.No.6423/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:59143
Cochin. Immediately thereafter, Sarith P.S., the former Public Relations
Officer of the Consulate General of UAE was arrested by the Customs
(Preventive) Commissionerate in O.R.No.07/2020 dated 06.07.2020.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India vide order dated 09.07.2020, directed the
NIA to take up the investigation of the case, as the enquiries had
revealed that the proceeds of the smuggled gold could be used for
financing terrorism in India. It was accordingly that NIA case
RC 02/2020/NIA/KOC was registered on 10.07.2020 under Sections 16,
17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against Sarith P.S.
[A1], Swapna Prabha Suresh [A2], the petitioner herein, Faisal Fareed
Theparambil [A3], who was the consignor of the consignment from UAE
and Sandeep Nair [A4].
3. It was the case of the Investigating Agency before the Special
Court that although the petitioner is arrayed as the 3 rd accused in the
case, he has been absconding for more than five years, having taken
shelter abroad, and has not been co-operating with the investigation.
Even after the Special Court issued non-bailable warrants against the
petitioner and had taken steps under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C.
to secure the presence of the petitioner, the petitioner failed to comply
with the orders of the Special Court and continues to remain as an
absconder. It was while so that the petitioner had approached the
Special Court with an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS
seeking a direction to the Special Court to monitor the investigation
Crl.M.C.No.6423/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:59143
and issue directions to the Investigating Agency to conduct a proper
and meaningful investigation.
4. The Special Court, after considering the contentions of the
petitioner, found as follows at paragraphs 60 to 63 while dismissing the
petition:
"60. Considering the records available before this court and the status
report now filed, it is clear that the investigation has been transferred from one
agency to NIA considering the serious nature of the offence. There are large number
of accused and the prosecution contended that involvement of each accused has got
different facets. The role of each accused is different from each other and a detailed
investigation is necessary to unravel the entire truth.
61. Considering the nature of the offences involved, this court is of the view
that this court cannot compel the prosecution to submit the final report, that too
within a time bound manner. It is well settled legal position that courts have no
power to give direction to the Investigating Agency to file the final report within
such and such time.
62. Equally settled is the legal position that the investigation is the
prerogative of the police or any other Investigating Agency who conducts
investigation and no court shall interfere or give direction that investigation has to
be conducted in such and such manner or within a time frame fixed by the court. It is
made clear that the court has no power to compel the Investigating Officer either to
arrest the accused or not to arrest the accused as all these aspects will fall within
the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer.
63. Yet another prayer sought for is to monitor the investigation. On receipt
of this application, this court has called for the status report which is now filed
before this court. This is a case where the petitioner was not arrested so far and this
petition is filed when he is staying abroad. The learned prosecutor argued that the
present application is filed by the absconding accused, who is not ready to co-
operate with the investigation and hence the application filed by the absconding
accused shall not be entertained. In answer to this, the learned counsel for the
petitioner argued that the petitioner has not absconded as contended by the learned
prosecutor and he has not adopted a non-cooperative attitude as contended by the
learned prosecutor and the learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is
ready to cooperate with the investigation. According to the learned counsel, the
petitioner is engaged in business abroad and even long before the registration of this
crime he is residing abroad in connection with his business and still he is abroad and
looking after his business activities there. So, the learned counsel argued that this
court has to monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigating agency is
doing a proper investigation without wastage of time. As stated earlier, this court has
already obtained the status report to know the stage of the investigation and an
exhaustive report is filed before this court. The said report was handed over to the
learned counsel for the petitioner from the bar when taken up for hearing for
perusal. In these circumstances, this court cannot either compel the investigating
agency to file the final report within a time frame fixed by it nor can monitor to
ensure that the investigating agency is conducting a time bound investigation as it is
the prerogative of the investigating officer to adopt his own methods known to law
and practice. With these observations, the petition is dismissed."
Crl.M.C.No.6423/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:59143
5. In the Crl.M.C. before us, it is the contention of Sri. Manu
Tom, the learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the
decisions in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. And Others - [2008 (2)
KHC 13]; Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage
and Others - [2016 KHC 3568], Kishanbihari Sharma alias Satya
v. State of M.P. and Others - [2021 KHC 5673] and Vinubhai
Haribhai Malaviya and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another -
[2019 (5) KHC 352] that the Special Court has ample power under
Section 175(3) of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure] to direct the Investigating Agency to
expedite the investigation and file the final report at the earliest. It is
the specific case of the petitioner that since he is staying abroad, he
cannot work out any of his legal remedies against the alleged
unsubstantiated proceedings against him unless the NIA completes the
investigation and files a final report, and therefore, the Special Court
erred in not passing positive orders on his petition.
6. Per contra, it is the submission of Smt.O.M.Shalina, the
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the
NIA that the investigations conducted thus far reveal that the petitioner
had a very important role to play in the act of smuggling of large
quantities of gold into India, an offence that virtually threatens the
security and economic security of the country. It is her further
submission that the petitioner who has not been participating in the
Crl.M.C.No.6423/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:59143
investigation by remaining abroad cannot be heard to say that an
investigation must be expedited and completed within the period
stipulated by him and that a final report should be submitted before the
Special Court at the earliest. She refers to the findings of the Special
Court in this regard and submits that the findings of the Special Court
do not call for any interference in these proceedings.
7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are inclined to
agree with the submissions made on behalf of the respondent NIA,
since it is not in dispute that the petitioner is safely ensconced outside
the country and has not been participating in the ongoing investigation
by the NIA. By not co-operating with the ongoing investigation, where
he is arrayed as the 3rd accused on the allegation that he was the
consignor of a large quantity of gold that was smuggled into the
country, he has effectively delayed the investigation process. Having
done so, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the
Investigating Agency has been dragging its feet in the matter of
submitting a final report before the Special Court. As a significant
contributory to the delay in the completion of the investigation, the
petitioner does not have the locus standi to challenge or question the
manner and speed with which the Investigating Agency must complete
the investigation against him. The petitioner cannot seek to reap the
benefits of his own misdeeds by forcing the Investigating Agency to
hurriedly submit an incomplete final report.
Crl.M.C.No.6423/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:59143
8. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the findings of
the Special Court impugned in these proceedings. The judgments
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also have no
bearing on the facts and circumstances of the instant case since they
merely state the well-settled position in law with regard to the powers
of a criminal court in relation to the monitoring of a criminal
investigation by the Investigating Agency concerned. The instant is a
case where the power that is recognised in the court through the above
judgments ought not to be exercised at the instance of a person who
has chosen to stay away from the investigation and thereby not
co-operate with the Investigating Agency.
The Crl.M.C. fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
prp/7/8/25
Crl.M.C.No.6423/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:59143
APPENDIX OF CRL.M.C.NO.6423/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION WITH ANNEXURES IN
CRL.M.P. NO.80/2025 IN R.C.
NO.2/20/NIA/KOCHI (S.C.NO.1/2021)SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR THE NIA CASES-
II, ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED05/06/2025 IN CRL.M.P.NO.80/2025 IN
R.C.NO.2/20/NIA/KOCHI (S.C.NO.1/2021) PASSED
BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR THE NIA CASES-II,
ERNAKULAM
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
