2024 (8) TMI 723 - SCH - Money Laundering

Seeking to recall/modify a part of para 15 of order dated 12.02.2024 - short grievance of the review-petitioners is that while granting liberty to the Directorate of Enforcement to avail two independent remedies, an impression has been created as if this Court has authoritatively held that a complaint at the instance of E.D. is maintainable before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. HELD THAT - Keeping in mind the well settled principle that a Court order causes prejudice to none, we deem it appropriate to modify/clarify para 15 of the order dated 12.02.2024 to the extent that the said order shall not be construed to have held that a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable at the instance of E.D. Whether such a complaint is maintainable or not shall be decided by the court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion in relation thereto. The aggrieved party thus shall be at liberty to have recourse to the appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law - The Review Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

Issues:
1. Review petition seeking to recall/modify a part of the order dated 12.02.2024 regarding maintainability of appeals by Directorate of Enforcement.
2. Interpretation of para 15 of the order and its impact on the rights of the review petitioners.
3. Clarification on the maintainability of a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. at the instance of Directorate of Enforcement.
4. Liberty granted to the review petitioners to challenge the maintainability of proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court allowed the application for permission to file the Review Petition and heard arguments from both sides regarding the prayer made in the Review Petition to recall/modify a part of the order dated 12.02.2024. The grievance of the review-petitioners was that an impression was created by para 15 of the order that a complaint at the instance of Directorate of Enforcement is maintainable before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which could prejudice their rights to oppose such complaints. On the contrary, the Additional Solicitor General argued that such complaints are maintainable under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and highlighted that the court had clarified in para 17 that the judicial forum would independently determine the maintainability of such proceedings. The court, after considering the arguments, modified/clarified para 15 to state that the order did not hold that such complaints are maintainable, leaving it to the court of competent jurisdiction to decide. The court emphasized that no opinion was expressed on the maintainability issue and granted liberty to the aggrieved party to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with the law.

The judgment addressed the concerns raised by the review petitioners regarding the interpretation of the order and its potential impact on their rights. By modifying/clarifying para 15, the court ensured that no authoritative opinion was given on the maintainability of complaints under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. at the instance of Directorate of Enforcement. This decision safeguarded the rights of the review petitioners to challenge the maintainability of any proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement without prejudice. The court upheld the principle that a court order should not cause prejudice to any party and allowed the aggrieved party to seek suitable remedies as permissible by law.

Overall, the judgment provided clarity on the maintainability issue raised in the Review Petition, ensuring that the rights of all parties involved were protected. By refraining from expressing any opinion on the maintainability of complaints under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the court maintained the impartiality of its decision and allowed the aggrieved party to pursue appropriate legal remedies. The modification/clarification of para 15 of the order dated 12.02.2024 served to alleviate the concerns raised by the review petitioners and reaffirmed the importance of determining maintainability issues through the court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →