9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 2018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 4 on 16.07.2016 as to how the petition was maintainable in Punjab and Haryana High Court when the case is pending with the Designated Court for the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act at Mumbai. It appears that objection No. 4 was answered by saying that the summons and complaint have been served at Panchkula/Chandigarh and the entire transactions as per the complaint took place within the territory of State of Punjab. The petitions were, thus, placed before this Court for admission hearing and on 18.07.2016, in CRWP-951-2016, this Court made an order and recorded the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners in para-2 thereof that the petitioner's company is located only within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The business is being transacted and the factory premises and the warehouses are located within the jurisdiction of this Court. The summons was also received by the petitioners from the Economic Offences Wing at the addresses within the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Navin Chandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (3) Crimes 222, as regards the issue of jurisdiction and issued not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the complaint and issued process on 13.01.2016. Pursuant to the said order dated 13.01.2016, accused summons dated 13.01.2016 (Annexure P-3) were issued to the accused persons, including the petitioners to appear on 22.01.2016/extended dated 16.05.2016. The petitioners having received the said summons, which is in a printed format, without filing the copy of order dated 13.01.2016, have obtained interim orders for exemption from personal appearance, bail and so on and so forth from this Court. 5. On 15.03.2018, when these petitions were listed before this Court, Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, raised a preliminary objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain these petitions and submitted that the jurisdiction to entertain any such petition lies only with the Bombay High Court. Since the interim order were operating, this Court granted time to the counsel for both the parties and fixed 27.03.2018 for hearing arguments on the issue of territorial jurisdiction. Arguments: 6. In support of these petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the complainant-Pankaj Saraf was also a member of the Exch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agine any reason for approaching this Court on said flimsy grounds regarding cause of action when, admittedly, the criminal complaint has been filed in the Court of City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay at Mumbai, and order issuing process and accused summons have been made at Mumbai. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment regarding jurisdiction in the case of Navin Chandra N. Majithia (supra) is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At any rate, the same has been explained by the Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment, which has been referred to in the written statement filed by the respondent. He submitted that all interim orders were obtained fraudulently. 8. Finally, counsel for the respondent prayed for dismissal of these petitions with exemplary costs as there is a sheer abuse of process of law. Consideration: 9. At the outset, this Court is taken aback at the manner in which these petitions were filed in this Court and from the conduct of the petitioners it clearly appears that the petitioners never wanted to approach the Designated Special Court itself at Mumbai; namely, City Civil Court (Designated Court for the Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against the accused persons/entities as detailed below and process may be issued against accused in accordance with Law: (i) Shri Anjani Sinha, (ii) Shri Amit Mukherjee, (iii) Shri Jai Bahukhandi, (iv) Smt. Bonhi Mukherjee, (v) M/s. P.D. Agroprocessors Pvt. Ltd., (vi) M/s. Dunar Foods Ltd., (vii) M/s. Prime Zone Developers Pvt. Ltd., (viii) Shri Surender Gupta, (ix) Shri Ranjeev Aggarwal (x) Shri Ashwin Sindhwani, (xi) Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, (xii) Shri Anil Kumar, (xiii) M/s. Aastha Minmet India Ltd., (xiv) M/s. Juggernaut Projects Ltd., (xv) M/s. Aastha Alloycorp Pvt. Ltd., (xvi) M/s. Aastha Allow Steel Pvt. Ltd., (xvii) Shri Mohit Aggarwal, (xviii) Smt. Shyama Kejriwal, (xix) M/s. Mohan India Pvt. Ltd., (xx) M/s. Tavishi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (xxi) M/s. Brinda Commodity Pvt. Ltd., (xxii) M/s. Whizkid Promoters Pvt. Ltd., (xxiii) Shri Jagmohan Garg, (xxiv) Shri Jai Shankar Srivastava, (xxv) Shri Ram Awadh Sharma, (xxvi) Shri Mukul Gupta, (xxvii), M/s. Spincot Textiles Pvt. Ltd., (xxviii) Shri Ghanta Kameswara Rao, (xxix) M/s. White Water Foods Pvt. Ltd., (xxx) M/s. Bha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexed as Annexure-B. The list of documents relied upon in the complaint is also enclosed as Calendar of evidences and annexed as Annexure-C." 11. As stated earlier, the designated Court at Mumbai took cognizance of the complaint and it must have passed a detailed order issuing process on 13.01.2016 but the petitioners have deliberately not filed the said order and have only filed the accused summons that they had received. The petitioners have, thus, clearly indulged in suppressio veri suggestio falsi and have, thus, played fraud on this Court. They have abused the process of this Court and have also fraudulently obtained interim orders from this Court. It is well known that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act prohibited grant of bail to the accused persons though a few months back, the Apex Court has not approved of it. The fact, however, remains that the offences have been treated as very serious offences as the same adversely affect the economy of the nation and also the common citizens and gullible investors. It is undisputed that the complaint itself was filed at Mumbai in the designated court at Mumbai, the order issuing process was passed by the court at Mumbai, the sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution." 13. It is clear from the above discussion and the facts as narrated above, that the petitioners have deliberately with a mala fide intention lodged the petitions here that have resulted in sheer abuse of process of law. The petitioners have obtained interim orders which are continuing for the last two years. Due to interim orders obtained from this Court, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners also could not be made. The submission that now charge-sheet has been filed is no answer as the Enforcement Directorate has always an authority to make further investigation. The custodial interrogation in the alleged huge scam like the present one could be most essential. However, in order to abuse the entire process of interrogation and investigation, these petitions were lodged in this Court and interim orders were obtained. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioners are fully guilty of misusing the process of law and interfering in the administration of justice. The petitioners are, therefore, liable to pay exemplary costs to the Union of India through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
