9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 942 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking suspension of LOC issued against the Petitioner - seeking permission to travel to Dubai and Italy - HELD THAT - During the pendency of the writ petition till November 22, 2021 no compliant under Section 45 of the PMLA was filed by the respondent No.1 before the Special Court. It was in the reply filed on December 28, 2021 to CM APPL. 47740/2021, the respondents for the first time stated that a second supplementary prosecution complaint has been filed before Special Court, PMLA, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi on December 22, 2021 against the petitioner and others in Complaint Case No.75/2019 in ECIR/07/DZCR/2019 for the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA and the Special Court has taken cognizance of the complaint and issued summoning order, and accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner should approach the concerned Special Court, PMLA, where the trial of the petitioner is pending, for quashing of the LOC. It is seen that the respondents have taken objection on the maintainability of the petition at the first available opportunity and as such the plea of Mr. Handoo that the respondents have not taken any objection on the maintainability of the petition in their counter affidavit is unmerited. This Court is of the view that the plea of Mr. Hossain on the maintainability of the petition needs to accepted and the writ petition and connected applications are closed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of an alternative remedy. 2. Legality of the Look-out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner. 3. Petitioner's fundamental right to travel. 4. Jurisdiction of the Special Court to rescind the LOC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of an alternative remedy: The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner should approach the concerned Special Court where the complaint is pending. The petitioner countered that Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue prerogative writs, and no parliamentary enactment or constitutional amendment can override this power. The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support the claim that the writ petition is maintainable even when an alternative remedy exists. However, the court found the respondents' argument appealing, emphasizing that the Special Court is competent to protect fundamental rights and that the petitioner should be relegated to the Special Court where the complaint is pending. 2. Legality of the Look-out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner: The petitioner contended that the LOC issued against her was arbitrary and violated her fundamental right to travel. The court noted that the LOC had been issued based on an ECIR related to a money laundering investigation. The petitioner had been traveling without hindrance since 2018, and the LOC was issued without any communication to her. The court acknowledged that the right to travel is a fundamental right, but emphasized that the Special Court is competent to address the legality of the LOC, especially since the complaint is now pending before it. 3. Petitioner's fundamental right to travel: The petitioner argued that her fundamental right to travel had been curtailed by the issuance of the LOC. The court recognized that the right to travel is a fundamental right, as established in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Suresh Nanda v. CBI cases. However, the court emphasized that the Special Court is competent to address this issue and that the petitioner should seek relief from the Special Court where the complaint is pending. 4. Jurisdiction of the Special Court to rescind the LOC: The petitioner argued that the Special Court does not have jurisdiction to rescind the LOC. The respondents countered that the Special Court has the jurisdiction to cancel the LOC, as established in the Sumer Singh Salkan case. The court agreed with the respondents, stating that the Special Court is within its rights to consider the withdrawal of the LOC. The court also noted that the petitioner is free to appear before the Special Court before the summoned date and seek relief. Conclusion: The court concluded that the writ petition is not maintainable in light of the pending complaint before the Special Court. The petitioner was directed to approach the Special Court for the withdrawal of the LOC and permission to travel. The court emphasized that the Special Court is competent to address all issues raised by the petitioner, including the legality of the LOC and any allegations of mala fide. The writ petition and connected applications were closed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek relief from the Special Court.
|
