2014 (1) TMI 1914 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - matter involving huge amount of money - Offence u/s 120-B, 467, 471, besides Section 420 I.P.C. - HELD THAT - The Court feels that the Directorate should supply at least the copy of the complaint, which has been made the basis for ongoing investigation against Shri Vijay Kumar Kushwaha. So, this Court directs the concerned officer i.e. the respondent no.2 to supply the copy as afore-stated. It needs not to mention that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the application for interim relief bearing no.599 of 2014, so the Court has restrained to pass any order thereon. List up this matter after six weeks.

Summary

Issues:
1. Lodging of First Information Report under Section 420 I.P.C.
2. Investigation under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Challenge to summons/notices and filing of Writ Petition.
4. Seeking quashing of the complaint registered by the Directorate of Enforcement.
5. Non-supply of the copy of the complaint for ongoing investigation.

Analysis:
1. The High Court noted that a First Information Report (FIR) was initially lodged under Section 420 I.P.C. by the Branch Manager of South Indian Bank against two individuals. Subsequently, one of the individuals lodged another FIR against various offices of the bank, including higher officers, almost seven and a half months later. The Directorate of Prevention of Money Laundering Act took over the investigation due to the substantial amount involved, and additional sections like 120-B, 467, 471, besides Section 420 I.P.C., were found applicable.

2. The Court observed that summons were issued to the individual who lodged the second FIR and his associates to assist in the investigation. Despite cooperation, the individual had not been provided with a copy of the complaint that formed the basis of the investigation by the Directorate. The Court directed the concerned officer to supply the copy of the complaint to ensure transparency in the ongoing investigation.

3. The individual had previously filed a Writ Petition challenging the summons/notices issued by the Directorate, which was dismissed by the Court. Subsequently, a Criminal Petition was filed seeking the quashing of the complaint registered by the Directorate of Enforcement. The Court considered the request for interim relief but noted that the petitioner had not pressed the application, hence refrained from passing any order on it.

4. The Court decided to list the matter for further proceedings after six weeks and directed it to be clubbed with other related cases. An urgency application related to the matter was disposed of accordingly, indicating the procedural progress of the case and the management of related petitions in the Court.