9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 1112 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - Money Laundering - scheduled offences - seeking constitution of multidisciplinary investigation team to investigate and prosecute respondent No. 11 and his associates for the offences alleged to have been committed by them - Direction against the Enforcement Directorate to register a case for offences of money laundering arising out of the scheduled offences - HELD THAT - In Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2007 (12) TMI 485 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court has held that when some one has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered and he rushes to High Court with a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr-P.C. High Court should not encourage this practice and ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternative remedy. Admittedly petitioner has filed a petition under Section 190(1)(c) read with Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special PMLA Court. This writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of public policy is sustained - petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition regarding a direction against the Director of Enforcement for money laundering. 2. Withdrawal of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and its impact on the current writ petition. 3. Alternative remedies available to the petitioner in approaching the Special Judge. 4. Legal status of the petitioner's firm and authorization of the petitioner's advocate. 5. Discretionary nature of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case revolves around the maintainability of the writ petition seeking a direction against the Director of Enforcement to register a case for money laundering. The respondents raised a preliminary objection citing the withdrawal of a previous PIL and the stay on the trial by the Supreme Court. The court noted the petitioner's pursuit of the matter and the lack of action by the first respondent, highlighting the siphoning of a significant amount of money involved. 2. The withdrawal of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the petitioner was a crucial point of contention. The Senior Advocates for the respondents argued that the withdrawal of the PIL affects the maintainability of the current writ petition. They emphasized the petitioner's alternative remedy in approaching the Special Judge, which was already in progress, and raised concerns about the petitioner's legal status and authorization of their advocate. 3. The alternative remedies available to the petitioner, such as approaching the Special Judge, were extensively discussed during the proceedings. The court considered the petitioner's actions in filing various cases and the challenges faced in those proceedings. The argument regarding the discretionary nature of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was also presented by the Senior Advocate for the petitioner. 4. The legal status of the petitioner's firm, the authorization of their advocate, and the implications of previous court orders on the current writ petition were thoroughly examined. The court delved into the details of the petitioner's representation and the challenges raised by the Senior Advocates for the respondents regarding the maintainability of the petition based on public policy grounds. 5. The court, after considering the rival contentions and relevant legal precedents, upheld the preliminary objection raised by the Senior Advocates for the private respondents. The court emphasized the applicability of previous judgments and ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of public policy, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition.
|
