2020 (8) TMI 859 - HC - Indian Laws

Money Laundering - scheduled offence - the respondents from taking any precipitate action against the petitioner in pursuance of the Enforcement Case Information Report i.e. ECIR/0I/HIU/20I9 dated 25.01.2019 ECIR solely on the ground that the charge-sheet did not advert to a scheduled offence - HELD THAT - On the previous date i.e. 08.07.2020 I had restrained the respondents from taking any precipitate action against the petitioner in pursuance of the Enforcement Case Information Report i.e. ECIR/0I/HIU/20I9 dated 25.01.2019 ECIR solely on the ground that the charge-sheet did not advert to a scheduled offence. Mr. Mahajan says that since the investigation is on there is a possibility of not only the petitioner being charged under Section 420 of the IPC but also qua other scheduled offence(s) as well - what is clear is that there is nothing on record before the concerned Court which points in the direction that the petitioner has infracted a provision of the IPC which is a scheduled offence. The only direction that can been issued whereby the interests of both the petitioner and the respondents are protected is that the subject ECIR be closed with liberty to the respondents to revive the same if a supplementary charge-sheet is filed and/or a charge is frame qua the petitioner concerning scheduled offence(s) - petition disposed off.

Issues involved:
1. Failure to file a counter-affidavit by the respondents.
2. Likelihood of a supplementary charge-sheet being filed due to ongoing police investigation.
3. Restraint on taking precipitate action against the petitioner based on the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
4. Absence of evidence of the petitioner infracting a scheduled offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
5. Possibility of the petitioner being charged with Section 420 of the IPC and other scheduled offences.
6. Lack of evidence before the concerned Court indicating the petitioner's infringement of a scheduled offence.
7. Decision to close the subject ECIR with liberty to revive it upon filing a supplementary charge-sheet or framing charges against the petitioner for scheduled offences.
8. Approval of the methodology by the petitioner's counsel to balance both parties' concerns.
9. Disposal of the writ petition in accordance with the given terms.

Analysis:

1. The judgment highlighted the failure of the respondents to file a counter-affidavit despite being granted opportunities on specific dates. This non-compliance was a significant issue addressed by the court, indicating a lack of response from the respondents.

2. The court acknowledged the ongoing police investigation and the likelihood of a supplementary charge-sheet being filed. This issue raised concerns about potential future legal actions against the petitioner based on the evolving nature of the investigation.

3. The court had previously restrained the respondents from taking immediate action against the petitioner based on the ECIR, emphasizing the importance of avoiding hasty decisions until all relevant information is available. This restraint was a crucial aspect of the judgment to protect the petitioner's interests.

4. It was noted that the charge-sheet did not establish the petitioner's infringement of Section 420 of the IPC, a scheduled offence. This absence of evidence regarding the scheduled offence was a key factor in the court's decision-making process.

5. The judgment highlighted the possibility of the petitioner facing charges under Section 420 of the IPC and other scheduled offences. This potential legal scenario added complexity to the case and influenced the court's directives.

6. The court emphasized the lack of evidence before the concerned Court indicating the petitioner's infringement of a scheduled offence. This observation played a crucial role in shaping the court's decision to protect the petitioner's rights.

7. Ultimately, the court decided to close the subject ECIR with the provision to revive it if a supplementary charge-sheet is filed or charges are framed against the petitioner for scheduled offences. This decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties and ensure fairness in the legal proceedings.

8. The methodology adopted by the court was approved by the petitioner's counsel, indicating a mutual understanding of the decision-making process and its implications for both sides.

9. The writ petition was disposed of in accordance with the terms outlined in the judgment, concluding the legal proceedings based on the issues addressed and decisions made by the court.

← Previous Next →