9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l; we refrain from elaborating the same in this order. However, since this point was argued before us, all we state is that it cannot be said that there is no material against the Petitioner. Furthermore, having concluded after examining the facts that exercise of jurisdiction under section 226 of the Constitution of India and 482 of Cr. P.C is not warranted. There is no question of granting any such relief as sought for by the Petitioner as it would be contrary to the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 23(xvi) of the decision in the case of NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [ 2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT] . Having considered the grounds urged by the Petitioner in the invocation of 226 of the Constitution and 482 of Cr.P.C., we do not find that the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. As regards the protection from arrest is concerned, the Petitioner has a remedy under the Cr.P.C. Petition dismissed. - CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3418 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2021 - NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud i/b. Sachin Thorat for the Petitioner. Mr. Anil Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orivali, Mumbai, on 27 September 2021, complaining of high blood pressure. In this fact situation, the present petition was filed on 29 September 2021. 4. The petition came upon 30 September 2021, and the Petitioner sought time to amend the petition, and it was adjourned to 1 October 2021. Then it came up on board on 1 October 2021. Again the Petitioner sought leave to amend the petition, and the petition was adjourned. Thereafter the petition has come up before us. 5. The Petitioner has originally prayed for quashing the proceeding bearing ECIR/MBZO/-I/02/2021, to set aside the summons dated 27 September 2021 and to restrain Respondent No.1 from issuing further summons and taking any coercive action against Petitioner pursuant to ECIR/MBZO/-I/02/2021. By way of the amendment, the Petitioner has sought direction to Respondent No.1 to provide copies of the ECIR in relation to the Petitioner, i.e. ECIR/MBZO/-I/02/2021 and ECIR/MBZO-I/09/2019 and quash these two ECIRs. 6. We have heard Dr.Chandrachud for the Petitioner, Mr.Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for Respondent No.1 and the learned APP for the State. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner made three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for the Petitioner has not disputed the proposition that even if a person is not named in the FIR in respect of scheduled offence, the proceedings under the PMLA can commence against such a person. The only contention of the Petitioner is that since the Petitioner himself has filed the FIR, if it is to be used against the Petitioner on the premise that it is a predicate offence, then there must be material that the Respondent No. 1 must demonstrate. The aspect of material will be addressed subsequently. Therefore, as regards the first contention based on the Petitioner not being named in the FIR, we do not need to adjudicate the same finally in view of the stand of the Petitioner. 10. The second issue that was contended before us is that the Petitioner ought to be supplied with a copy of the ECIRs. According to the Petitioner, the ECIR is the foundation of proceedings initiated under the PMLA and without the ECIRs are being supplied to the Petitioner, the Petitioner cannot effectively take recourse to legal remedies. It is also the contention of the Petitioner that the summons also does not give any details as to why the Petitioner is being called. As a sequitur to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in respect of applicability of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is in the context of this limited issue that the Apex Court rendered its decision. We do not find from this decision that there is any comment as regards the nature of the ECIR, whether it needs to be supplied, whether it is the public document, whether it can be equated to the FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned ASG has pointed out to us that this issue is now pending before the Apex Court. As far as the issue that is before us as to whether ECIR can be considered as the FIR and not an internal document, this issue has been addressed and directly decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Charu Kishor Mehta. In the case of Charu Kishor Mehta, a prayer was made to direct the Enforcement Directorate to supply the copy of the ECIR, and the Petitioner therein had moved at the stage of issuance of summons under Section 50 of PMLA. The Division Bench categorically observed that ECIR is an internal document of the Enforcement Directorate, and unlike FIR, it is not a public document. We, therefore, follow the decision of this Court in the case of Charu Kishor Mehta, wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt, setting aside the caste certificate of Navneet Kaur Rana. On 22 June 2021, an interim order was passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petitions filed by Navneet Kaur Rana. When the SLPs were adjourned to 22 September 2021, raids were conducted by Respondent No.1 at the home of the Petitioner, his daughter and his sons. When the SLPs was adjourned to 29 September 2021, the summons was issued on 27 September 2021. According to the Petitioner, these facts, apart from the non-supply of ECIRs, will cumulatively show that there is an abuse of power by Respondent No.1 and the proceedings against the Petitioner are political vendettas. The Petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427 to contend that in such a situation, it will be the duty of this Court to interfere and stop the abuse of process of law. 14. The learned ASG submitted that the Respondent No.1 Enforcement Directorate under mandate under the provisions of PMLA to carry on an investigation when the authority on the basis of material in his possession has reason to believe that offence under Section 3 of the Act is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssor government after the Respondent went out of power. The Supreme Court observed that such facts by themselves cannot support the inference that initiation of prosecution is actuated by the political vendetta or malafides because it might be possible there might be the material justifying the initiation of prosecution. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot create a case of malafides by simply suggesting that the Petitioner had filed proceedings against a member of the ruling dispensation, the action by the Enforcement Directorate is vitiated by malafides is too far fetched to accept in the facts of this case because there no material placed before us except hints, to accept it as a legal ground of challenge. 16. Once we conclude that malafides are not proved, then there is no ground on which we can interfere and stall the proceedings under the PMLA. Though it is true that the Supreme Court, in the case of Arnab Goswami, has observed that this Court has powers in a given case to powers to pass orders protecting the citizens from abuse of process of law.,the question of whether there was an abuse of process of law will ultimately depend on the facts of each case. Further, the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner can avail of statutory remedies, and no exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is warranted. The learned ASG submitted that the conduct of the Petitioner should also be considered when the Petitioner did not appear pursuant to the summons and when the officers of the Respondent No. 1 - Enforcement Directorate went to the residence of the Petitioner, he had no medical complications and by calling an ambulance admitted himself to the hospital, and it is out of deference that the Respondent No.1 has not taken any further action. 18. The prayer by the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 be restrained from taking the Petitioner in custody is nothing but prayer for a grant of anticipatory bail. The contention of the Petitioner that without having copies of the ECIRs, the Petitioner cannot approach the competent court with a prayer for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is misplaced. The Petitioner apprehends his arrest, and section 438 of Cr.P.C. provides a statutory remedy for such a contingency. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., the Apex Court has observed that when the entire material is not before the High Court, the High Court sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
