9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 666 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - predicate offence - legality of quashing the proceedings of petitioner - case of Revenue is that the proceedings against A1 to A3 and A9 have only been quashed and that in the said circumstances, when the proceedings are pending against the other accused for the predicate offence, the proceedings against this petitioner cannot be quashed - HELD THAT - The order taking cognizance by the Magistrate was set aside and it cannot be said that proceedings are pending against other accused. However since the petitions were preferred by accused 1 to 3 and 9, the concluding portion was accordingly spelt out. In view of the quashing of proceedings against accused in the predicate offence, following the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT , the proceedings in ECIR/HYZO/34/2021, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad Zonal Office are hereby quashed. The criminal petition is allowed.
Issues Involved:
Petitioner questioning the continuance of proceedings ECIR/HYZO/34/2021 by Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad Zonal Office. Detailed Summary: Issue 1: Petitioner challenged the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate based on a complaint filed by the Jubilee Hills Welfare Society Limited regarding alleged unlawful actions by certain individuals related to property transactions. Issue 2: The complaint alleged that certain individuals, in collusion, registered a property in the name of a person who was not the original allottee, leading to accusations of cheating, breach of trust, impersonation, and tax evasion. Issue 3: After police investigation, a final report was filed stating the dispute as civil in nature. Subsequently, a protest petition was filed before the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offences against the accused, leading to the registration of a criminal case. Issue 4: The High Court quashed the proceedings against the accused, citing non-compliance with legal standards for taking cognizance, as established by previous Supreme Court judgments. Issue 5: The petitioner argued that since the criminal proceedings were quashed, the continuation of the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate was unwarranted, referring to a Supreme Court ruling on the prosecution for money laundering. Issue 6: The Enforcement Directorate contended that as proceedings were pending against some accused for the predicate offence, the investigation should continue despite the quashing of proceedings against certain individuals. Issue 7: The High Court reiterated the importance of proper reasoning and legal standards in summoning accused persons for trial, emphasizing the need for a judicious evaluation of facts before taking such serious steps. Issue 8: In line with the Supreme Court precedent, the High Court quashed the proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate, following the quashing of proceedings against accused individuals in the predicate offence. Issue 9: The Criminal Petition was allowed, and related applications were closed. Additionally, it was noted that the complainant had appealed to the Supreme Court, which was later dismissed as withdrawn. This detailed summary provides a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment involving various issues and the subsequent decisions made by the High Court in the case.
|
