9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1277 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - siphoning off of funds - sham and bogus transaction for diverting money belonging to the homebuyers - Petitioner states that he, along with other homebuyers who had invested in the said project, have not been handed over their houses as assured by Respondent No. 5 - HELD THAT - It is trite law that the Courts should monitor investigation only in rarest or rare cases and only when it is absolutely necessary. In DUKHISHYAM BENUPANI VERSUS ARUN KUMAR BAJORIA 1997 (11) TMI 428 - SUPREME COURT , the Apex Court has held It is not the function of the court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law. It must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences. A blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual. This Court has carefully gone through the status report filed in the matter and the facts of the case remains that SFIO is investigating into the matter. All minute details have been filed in the status report - The facts further reveal that the status report of Directorate of Enforcement also reveals that the cases were registered under the PMLA and the investigation under the PMLA is going on. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that Investigating Agencies are proceeding ahead with the matter to bring it to the logical conclusion. This Court, in the interest of justice, is of the opinion that the Investigating Agencies deserve a command to conclude the investigation and bring it to a logical conclusion at an early date keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case and especially the fact that the investigation is already underway by different agencies, this Court is not inclined to pass any further order in the matter. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Investigation into alleged offences under IPC and PMLA. 2. Investigation by SFIO into the fraudulent Bhiwadi Land Transaction. 3. Freezing of assets of Respondent Nos. 3 to 15. 4. Monitoring of investigations by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 16. 5. Legal remedies for homebuyers. Summary of Judgment: 1. Investigation into Alleged Offences: The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to investigate offences committed by Respondent Nos. 3 to 15 under IPC and PMLA related to the alleged purchase of development rights in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. The Petitioner alleged that the money invested by homebuyers was being diverted and siphoned off by Respondent Nos. 3 to 15 under the guise of land transactions. The Court noted that the ED has already been investigating the matter, with Respondent No. 3 in judicial custody and ongoing investigations under PMLA. 2. Investigation by SFIO: The Petitioner also sought directions for the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to investigate the fraudulent Bhiwadi Land Transaction and extend the scope of investigation. The SFIO, in its Status Report, revealed that the IREO Group of Companies had diverted funds and failed to deliver projects to homebuyers. The Court observed that the SFIO is already investigating the matter, with detailed findings submitted in a sealed cover. 3. Freezing of Assets: The Petitioner requested the freezing of all assets of Respondent Nos. 3 to 15. The Court noted that similar reliefs had been sought in previous petitions, and the SFIO and ED were already investigating the matter. The Court did not find it necessary to pass additional orders for freezing assets, as the investigating agencies were actively pursuing the case. 4. Monitoring of Investigations: The Petitioner sought monitoring of investigations by the Court to ensure fairness and impartiality. The Court referred to precedents, emphasizing that judicial monitoring of investigations should be rare and only when absolutely necessary. The Court concluded that the investigating agencies were proceeding with the matter and did not require further judicial intervention. 5. Legal Remedies for Homebuyers: The Court acknowledged that homebuyers are at liberty to approach the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) for redressal of their grievances. The Court did not grant the reliefs sought by the Petitioner, considering the ongoing investigations by multiple agencies. Conclusion: The Court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the investigating agencies to conclude their investigations promptly. The Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Court if needed in the future.
|
