9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1373 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Locus of the petitioner-ED in a closure report filed by the State of Maharashtra before the Magistrate in a case registered at the behest of respondent No.2-Akbar Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT - Admittedly the respondent No. 2-Akbar Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd. filed a private complaint as against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Ballard Pier Mumbai praying therein for an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate was pleased to pass an order under Section 156(3) pursuant to which the M.R.A Marg Police Station registered an FIR being C.R. No. 66 of 2020 as against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 420 465 467 468 471 and 120-B of the IPC. The said offences being scheduled offences under the PMLA the petitioner-ED registered an ECIR as against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 under the PMLA and proceeded with its investigation - It appears that the petitioner-ED on being informed by the respondent No.2 about the closure report also filed a Protest Petition before the learned Magistrate and prayed that they be heard before any order could be passed on the closure report filed by the respondent No.1-State. It is thus evident that an informant/complainant is entitled to a notice before any orders are passed on the closure report by the Magistrate whereas an injured or in case of death the relative of the deceased can be heard even without notice i.e. in cases where the police file a closure report or a C summary report in respect of a complaint. Thus the three categories of persons whose locus has been recognized are the complainant injured persons or the relatives/heirs of the deceased. The petitioner-ED is an independent investigating agency empowered to investigate offences under the PMLA and FEMA and in the facts cannot be termed as a victim or aggrieved/injured/interested person having regard to the judicial pronouncements. There is no provisions in law which supports the claim of the petitioner-ED with respect to its locus to intervene and contest the closure report filed by the respondent No.1- State. Thus the petitioner cannot be permitted to intervene and contest in the closure report filed by the respondent No.1-State - it is clearly evident that Magistrates having no inherent powers cannot entertain applications/ petitions from any person other than a victim/complainant/injured person or relative of the deceased. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and accordingly disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the petitioner-Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in a closure report filed by the State of Maharashtra. 2. Right to be heard in closure report proceedings. 3. Definition and scope of the term "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. 4. Jurisdiction and inherent powers of Magistrates and subordinate criminal courts. 5. Applicability of various judicial precedents to the case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Locus Standi of the Petitioner-Directorate of Enforcement (ED): The primary issue was whether the petitioner-ED has the locus standi to intervene in a closure report filed by the State of Maharashtra. The court concluded that the ED does not have locus standi, as it cannot be considered a victim, injured, or interested person under the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that each investigating agency operates independently, and no agency has supervisory authority over another. 2. Right to be Heard in Closure Report Proceedings: The court referred to the judgment in Bhagwat Singh vs. Commissioner of Police & Anr, which established that only three categories of persons have the right to be heard before a closure report is accepted: the complainant/informant, an injured person, and a relative of the deceased. The ED does not fall into any of these categories and thus does not have the right to be heard in these proceedings. 3. Definition and Scope of the Term "Victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C: The term "victim" is defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged. The court clarified that the ED, acting in a representative capacity for economic offences, does not meet this definition. The court cited the Division Bench's interpretation in Mahendrasinh Jorubha Zala vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors., which emphasized that a victim must be the actual sufferer of the offence. 4. Jurisdiction and Inherent Powers of Magistrates and Subordinate Criminal Courts: The court noted that Magistrates do not have inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 vests only with the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The court cited Major General A. S. Gauraya & Anr. vs. S. N. Thakur & Anr., affirming that subordinate criminal courts lack inherent jurisdiction outside the Cr.P.C provisions. 5. Applicability of Various Judicial Precedents: The court analyzed several judgments cited by both parties. It concluded that the judgments relied upon by the ED, such as Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar & Ors., were not applicable to the facts of the case. The court also clarified that the reference to Section 190(1)(c) in Abhinandan Jha & Ors. vs. Dinesh Mishra was an error and should be read as Section 190(1)(b). The court found that the judgments cited by the ED pertained to different contexts, such as bail rejections under the PMLA, and did not support the ED's claim of locus standi. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the ED does not have the locus standi to intervene in the closure report proceedings. The court emphasized that the ED cannot be considered a victim or an aggrieved/injured/interested person under the Cr.P.C. The request for a stay of the order was also rejected.
|
