9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 461 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - validty of FIR - prosecution complaint quashed - Whether when the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate had been quashed by the Supreme Court, would the statements made under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 of various witnesses continue to form the basis of F.I.R. which was to be lodged on the basis of the communication passed on to the State under Section 66(2) of the PML Act? - HELD THAT - When on the date when the ED had communicated to the State of Uttar Pradesh on 28.7.2023 (purportedly under section 66(2) of the PML Act, 2002) then on that date the prosecution complaint was very much surviving and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in the communication being sent on 28.7.2023 and in the lodging of the FIR on 30.7.2023. Also if the prosecution complaint had been set aside, there was information available with the ED which had compulsorily to be disclosed to the relevant authority for taking necessary action. In the instant case, if the FIR is perused, then it becomes clear that the Directorate of Enforcement while investigating in a money laundering case under the provisions of PML Act, 2002 had discovered that a company known by the name of M/s. Prizm Holography and Security Films Pvt. Ltd. which was based in Noida was illegally granted a tender to supply holograms to the Excise Department of Chhattisgarh. FIR therefore was registered under sections 420, 468, 471 473, 484 and 120-B IPC. The accused government officials and the owner of the firm M/s. Prizm Holography and Security Films Pvt. Ltd. along with Anwar Dhebar were prima facie involved in the case in question. A bare perusal of the FIR does not evidently disclose the complicity in the case of Anwar Dhebar with the crime in question but the counter affidavits of the State definitely reveal such incriminating evidence which confirms the involvement of Anwar Dhebar. The whatsapp chat between Anwar Dhebar and company officials of the firm definitely go to indicate that there were dubious activities going on in between the accused persons. It is a clear law as has been held by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT ; State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani 2017 (1) TMI 1683 - SUPREME COURT and Lalita Kumar vs. State of U.P. 2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT that if there is a cognizable offence disclosed in the FIR, then no interference is to be made by the Court. In the instant case, so far as the petitioners Anil Tuteja, Arun Pati Tripathi and Niranjan Das are concerned we do find that against them a definite allegation is there in the FIR and they disclose cognizable offences under sections 420, 468, 471 473, 484 and 120-B IPC. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal Ors. 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT , an FIR could be quashed if there was nothing established from the reading of the FIR and from the evidence collected thereafter. In the instant case the evidence gathered after the lodging of the FIR definitely showed complicity of the petitioner Anwar Dhebar with the crime in question. The law with regard to criminal cases stands on a different footing from the law with regard to service law etc. wherein an order cannot be substituted with reasons etc. in the form of subsequent affidavits - In the case at hand, it is found that Anwar Dhebar was named in the FIR and during the investigation his complicity in the crime which was a cognizable one cannot be prima facie ruled out, the evidence in regard to which was clearly to be found in the counter affidavit of the State and of the E.D. The answer to the question that whether when the prosecution complaint itself had been done away with, could the FIR stand on the basis of the statements etc. which were recorded under section 50 of the PML Act, 2002, would be that definitely the information which was gathered under section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 was a material in the possession of the Director of ED which had to be transmitted to the concerned agency for necessary action. In the instant case, the State of Uttar Pradesh was the concerned agency which had to look into the fact as to whether the work of manufacturing holograms was given to M/s. Prizm Holography and Security Films Pvt. Ltd. illegally by the accused persons and whether the accused persons for their illegal acts had charged commission. It will be very unsafe to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that for all initiation of criminal cases, statements made before the authorities under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 could never be used. Such statements which are in the knowledge of an investigating agency can always be used for initiating or for furthering of any pending investigation. It of course need not be used for the purposes of a trial and definitely they could not be categorized as confessions or admissions - Also when the ED had by its communication dated 28.07.2023 informed the State of Uttar Pradesh and which information had resulted in the F.I.R. dated 30.07.2023 then that information was an information under Section 66(2) of the PML Act, 2002 and that information could be always used by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Still further even if the crimes had allegedly been discovered in the State of Chhatisgarh, when it was discovered by ED that duplicate holograms were being made in NOIDA a district of the State of Uttar Pradesh then it was in the fitness of things that the State of Uttar Pradesh was informed about the wrongs which were being done on its territory. Also there was nothing malicious in the fact that when the State of Chhatisgarh did not react to the communication dated 11.07.2023, then the ED had written to the State of Uttar Pradesh on 28.07.2023 about the activities which were being done in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is not required to interfere in the writ petitions - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the FIR based on the communication under Section 66(2) of the PML Act, 2002. 2. Validity of using statements recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 for lodging FIRs. 3. Jurisdictional issues regarding the FIR lodged in Uttar Pradesh for alleged crimes originating in Chhattisgarh. 4. Allegations of mala fide actions by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the State of Uttar Pradesh. 5. The impact of the Supreme Court's quashing of the prosecution complaint on subsequent FIRs. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the FIR: The petitioners sought to quash the FIR dated 30.7.2023, arguing that it was based on the communication from the ED under Section 66(2) of the PML Act, 2002, which they claimed was invalid after the Supreme Court quashed the prosecution complaint. The court held that at the time of the communication on 28.7.2023, the prosecution complaint was still valid, and thus the FIR lodged on 30.7.2023 was not without basis. The court emphasized that the ED had a duty to share information with the relevant authorities, and the FIR disclosed cognizable offences under sections 420, 468, 471, 473, 484, and 120-B IPC. 2. Validity of Using Statements under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002: The petitioners argued that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002, could not be used for initiating criminal proceedings under the IPC. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Prem Prakash vs. Union of India, which outlined that such statements are not confessions and can be used for investigation purposes. The court concluded that while these statements might not be admissible at trial, they could be used to initiate or further investigations. 3. Jurisdictional Issues: The petitioners contended that the alleged offences originated in Chhattisgarh, and thus the FIR in Uttar Pradesh was without jurisdiction. The court found that since the alleged manufacturing of duplicate holograms occurred in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, it was appropriate for the State of Uttar Pradesh to act on the information provided by the ED. 4. Allegations of Mala Fide Actions: The petitioners alleged that the FIR was a result of malicious actions by the ED and the State of Uttar Pradesh. The court rejected these claims, stating that the communication from the ED to Uttar Pradesh was legitimate and timely, especially given that Chhattisgarh had not acted on similar information. The court found no evidence of mala fide intent in the actions of the ED or the State of Uttar Pradesh. 5. Impact of the Supreme Court's Quashing of the Prosecution Complaint: The petitioners argued that since the Supreme Court quashed the prosecution complaint, the FIR should also be invalidated. The court clarified that the Supreme Court's decision only affected the prosecution complaint and not the underlying information or investigations. The FIR was based on independent information and allegations that warranted investigation, regardless of the status of the prosecution complaint. Conclusion: The court dismissed all writ petitions, holding that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the investigation should proceed. The petitioners were advised to seek remedies such as bail or anticipatory bail through the appropriate legal channels.
|
