9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, by holding that such powers requires to be exercised in the rarest of rare cases, the exceptions to which have been repeatedly pointed out. In the case of STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS BHAJAN LAL [ 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT] , some of the exceptions for quashing the complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. held that Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ANOOP BARTARIA ETC. VERSUS DY. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ANR. [ 2023 (5) TMI 102 - SUPREME COURT] , the dictum in Bhajan Lal's case was followed and by pointing out that the case involved therein, did not fall under any of the exceptions pointed out in Bhajan Lal's case and in view of the material to show prima facie involvement of the accused for the offence of money laudering, the Supreme Court had refused to quash the complaint. Thus, the material on record does make out a prima faci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cond and third accused are its Chairman and Managing Director respectively of the first accused company. The petitioners 1, 2 and 5 are the daughters of the second accused, the third petitioner is the wife of the second accused and the fourth petitioner is the wife of the third accused. All the petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.4 to 8 in the proceedings. The petitioners now seek to quash these proceedings. 3. Mr.E.Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners herein submitted that these petitioners herein were never Directors or in-charge of any affairs relating to the management of the company and have nothing to do with the financial decision making affairs of the company. Apart from the third petitioner, the other petitioners are not even shareholders of the company. By drawing our attention to certain factual aspects to substantiate that the petitioners had sufficient independent source of income, out of which, jewelleries and properties have been purchased, the claim of the first respondent that such properties were purchased out of the proceeds of crimes, is not based on any material evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter became a Director of M/s.Dynepro Private Limited. 11 . On the basis of the statements of these petitioners, the Directorate of Enforcement had alleged that all these petitioners had directly or indirectly had nexus with the first accused company and therefore, cannot claim that they were not in-charge of any affairs relating to the management of the company. 12. The proceeds of crime include properties that are not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offences, but would also include those properties, which may be directly or indirectly derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the schedule offences. When any person is charged for an offence under Section 3 of PMLA, there is a presumption that the proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. 13 . The impugned complaint is based on the statements given by the petitioners herein and in view of the statements made therein, the authority or the Court shall presume that the petitioners had involved with the proceeds of crime and acquired properties and attempted to claim it as untainted property and accordingly, the requirement for the offence under Section 3 of PMLA is made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made by the petitioners indicating their nexus with the first accused Company, there was a possibility that they could be involved in the management of the company, which possibility requires to be established through the proceeds of a full fledged trial. 17. The scope of the powers of the Court to quash the complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been time and again dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, by holding that such powers requires to be exercised in the rarest of rare cases, the exceptions to which have been repeatedly pointed out. In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335, some of the exceptions for quashing the complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C., were pointed out in the following manner: 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d others Vs. Deputy Director Enforcement Directorate and another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 477 , the dictum in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) was followed and by pointing out that the case involved therein, did not fall under any of the exceptions pointed out in Bhajan Lal's case and in view of the material to show prima facie involvement of the accused for the offence of money laudering, the Supreme Court had refused to quash the complaint. 19. In the case before us also, the grounds raised by the petitioners do not fall under any of the category pointed out in Bhajan Lal's case. On the other hand, the material on record does make out a prima facie case to implicate the petitioners for the offence of money laundering, as contemplated under PMLA. In this background, we do not find any reason to entertain the prayer sought for in the present petition. 20. Before parting with the case, we would like to clarify that the observations and findings rendered by us in the present case, are only for the purpose of substantiating the prima facie case before us for the purpose of refusing to exercise our powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, neither the Speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
