facts is that :-
In the Year of 2012 - following case as on date still running in the Court I, my wife, family and other persons invested some money in online investment companies named 'Unipay2U Mktng.Pvt.Ltd.' & 'Visarev LLC 'in lieu of good monthly returns. Some one friend also came to know of it and showed his interest to invest. I only introduced the guidelines to him & he invested by his sole & discrete decision in the Company. He requested me to help him with the procedures & I helped him in only investing the money, and he too had received the documents from the company to an investor directly. He also received points from the Company as per the Company norms through sms until when unfortunately the Company closed down & misappropriated all our money & Im also a victim of the same.
After that he had been constantly threatening me & demanding his money back from me. But the fact remains true that I had only been an introducer & i am myself a victim to it & I & my wife and all other investors have also been cheated & our money misappropriated by the Company.
After that I’m filed an application U/S:156(3)Cr.P.C. registered as M.P.Case U/S:420/406/120(B)/506 of IPC and the said application was also forwarded to the Inspector-in-Charge in local police station to be registered as a specific case and accordingly the I/C; P.S. registered the case against above cheated Companies & above friend.
Unfortunately my friend come to know and received/granted anticipatory bail.
After that he filed an FIR in local police station against me & placed five unknown persons as witnesses of my receiving money from him but he has no written proof such as receipt and a court case U/S 419/420/120B of IPC.As a consequence of which police arrested me & the magistrate passed the order to keep me on 14 days remand custody & demand for submit the charge sheet.
(Jujment :- Sec 41-A CrPC ACT- Arnesh Kumar v/s State of Bihar(2014)8SCC 273)& Jagdeesh v/s State of Maharashtra(SLP No.1758/2022).
Can without any written proof but only on the basis of any unknown persons can police arrest & Magistrate give such punishment even though I had only introduced the business? is it justified?
But i had been put to remand wrongly. I hadn't known about the provisions at that time, so is there any way i can ask for compensation for the injustice done to me?
can i take any legal step against the magistrate etc… for passing the above order ?
Above case as on date still running in the Court .
Regards,
The magistrate can remand a person under section 167:
The object and scope of Section 167 is well-settled that it is supplementary to S. 57. It is clear from S. 57 that the investigation should be completed in the first instance within 24 hours and if cannot be done, the arrested person should be brought by the police before a magistrate as provided under Section 167
In other words, the object of this provision is two-fold; firstly, that the law does not favor detention in police custody except in special cases and that too for reasons to be stated by the Magistrate in writing, and secondly, to enable such person to make a representation before a Magistrate.
Remand application under S.167(1) is made by the officer in charge of the police station or the person making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of the sub inspector whenever he thinks that the investigation would not be completed within 24 hours as mandated by S. 57 and he has grounds to believe that the accusation or the information is well informed. He must also forward the accused and the transit the copy of the entries in the diary along with the application.
The accused who has been brought before the court must be involved in an ongoing investigation that cannot be completed within 24 hours and his presence is required by the police for the investigation. S. 57 provides that where a person has been arrested without warrant, he cannot be detained in custody for a period exceeding 24 hours without a special order by the magistrate under S. 167. Therefore, from a conjoint reading of S.57 and S. 167, it can be concluded that for an application under S. 167, it is required that the accused who is been forwarded to the magistrate must be involved in an ongoing investigation that cannot be completed within 24 hours.
If the above procedures have been followed by magistrate then there can be no legal infirmity in the orders passed by the magistrate.
If the prima facie accusation or information is not well founded and sufficient grounds do not exist for the Magistrate to exercise his power of remand, in such cases, remand of accused can be refused. However this very rarely happens because it requires application of mind especially if the magistrate considers that this is a put up case hence arrest or remand is not necessary at this stage.
