9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduled offences - HELD THAT:- In Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [ 2007 (12) TMI 485 - SUPREME COURT ], the Apex Court has held that when some one has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered and he rushes to High Court with a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr-P.C., High Court should not encourage this practice and ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternative remedy. Admittedly, petitioner has filed a petition under Section 190(1)(c) read with Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special PMLA Court. This writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of public policy is sustained - petition dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation dated January 31, 2020. 4. Shri. Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate made following submissions: * Petitioner has unconditionally withdrawn the PIL. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable on the ground of public policy as held in Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal(1987)1 SCC 5; * Petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy to approach the Special Judge and it has already filed PCR No.38/2020 before the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaiuru under Section 190(1)(c) and Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same. is pending; * Petitioner has filed PCRs No.2/2018, 3/2018 & 4/2018 before XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaiuru against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and Napean Trading and Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner represented by Mr.R.Subramanian has filed a Company Application in the Company petition with a prayer to set-aside the amalgamation order passed by this Court; 5. Shri. Ganesh, learned Senior Advocate made following submissions: * Relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India is discretionary in nature; * Petitioner has argued the PIL on five occasions. On the last date, hearing was for about 50 minutes and he withdrew the -PIL unconditionally when the Bench observed that PIL would be dismissed with exemplary cost; * Shri. Subramanian, learned Advocate for petitioner has admitted during the nearing of W.P. No. 11482/2020 bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate since 2015. 12. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 13. In the PIL, Director of Enforcement was arrayed as respondent No. 7. As recorded hereinabove, petitioner had sought for a direction against respondents No. 1 to 10 therein to constitute a multi-Disciplinary Team to investigate and prosecute MC, Azim Premji and his associates. Prayer clause (i) in this writ petition is for a direction against the Enforcement Directorate to register a case for offences of money laundering arising out of the scheduled offences in Special Case ND.69/2020. The trial of the said case has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 14. In Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2008) 2 SCC 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
