9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 936 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - predicate offence - irregularities in the loan disbursement by the City Co-operative Bank - only contention of the Petitioner is that since the Petitioner himself has filed the FIR, if it is to be used against the Petitioner on the premise that it is a predicate offence, then there must be material that the Respondent No. 1 must demonstrate - HELD THAT - The contention of the Petitioner that without having copies of the ECIRs, the Petitioner cannot approach the competent court with a prayer for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is misplaced. The Petitioner apprehends his arrest, and section 438 of Cr.P.C. provides a statutory remedy for such a contingency. The learned ASG has shown the file containing the statements recorded in furtherance of ECIRs. Considering that the Petitioner has a statutory remedy under section 438 of Cr.P.C. and any observation by us on the merits of the matter against the Petitioner will prejudice the Petitioner in case the Petitioner approaches the competent court for anticipatory bail; we refrain from elaborating the same in this order. However, since this point was argued before us, all we state is that it cannot be said that there is no material against the Petitioner. Furthermore, having concluded after examining the facts that exercise of jurisdiction under section 226 of the Constitution of India and 482 of Cr. P.C is not warranted. There is no question of granting any such relief as sought for by the Petitioner as it would be contrary to the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 23(xvi) of the decision in the case of NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT . Having considered the grounds urged by the Petitioner in the invocation of 226 of the Constitution and 482 of Cr.P.C., we do not find that the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. As regards the protection from arrest is concerned, the Petitioner has a remedy under the Cr.P.C. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Predicate Offence 2. Supply of ECIR Copies 3. Quashing of ECIRs and Summons 4. Allegation of Malafides and Abuse of Power 5. Protection from Arrest Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Predicate Offence: The Petitioner argued that there was no predicate offence against him, which is a prerequisite for proceedings under the PMLA. However, the Petitioner later accepted the legal position that it is not necessary for a person to be named in the FIR for the predicate offence for proceedings under the PMLA to continue. The FIR in question (CR-14/2020) was filed by the Petitioner himself and did not name him. The Court noted that the offence for money laundering is defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, and the FIR is in respect of a scheduled offence. The contention regarding the lack of a predicate offence was not pursued further by the Petitioner. 2. Supply of ECIR Copies: The Petitioner contended that he should be provided with copies of the ECIRs as they are foundational documents for the proceedings under PMLA. The Petitioner cited the Supreme Court decision in Ashok Munilal Jain v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and a Delhi High Court decision. However, the Court relied on its own precedent in Charu Kishor Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, which held that the ECIR is an internal document of the Enforcement Directorate and not a public document like an FIR. The Court rejected the Petitioner’s request to direct Respondent No.1 to furnish the ECIR copies. 3. Quashing of ECIRs and Summons: The Petitioner sought to quash the ECIRs and the summons issued to him on two grounds: lack of a predicate offence and malafides. The Court had already addressed the issue of the predicate offence. Regarding malafides, the Court found no substantial evidence to support the claim that the proceedings were politically motivated or an abuse of power. The Court noted that the Petitioner failed to establish that the Enforcement Directorate acted under the influence of political rivals. 4. Allegation of Malafides and Abuse of Power: The Petitioner alleged that the ECIRs and summons were issued out of political rivalry and were an abuse of power. The Court examined the timeline of events and found that the Petitioner’s claims were based on assumptions and lacked concrete evidence. The Court emphasized that malafides must be proven with substantial evidence, which was not provided by the Petitioner. The Court cited the Supreme Court decision in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, which stated that mere initiation of prosecution by a successor government does not imply malafides. 5. Protection from Arrest: The Petitioner sought protection from arrest, arguing that he was likely to be taken into custody by the Enforcement Directorate. The Court noted that the Petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which advises against judicial interference in police investigations. The Court concluded that it would not grant the relief sought by the Petitioner as it would be contrary to established legal principles. Conclusion: The Court rejected the Writ Petition, stating that the Petitioner failed to make a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Petitioner was advised to seek remedy under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that any decision on anticipatory bail would be made on its own merits and in accordance with the law.
|
