Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2023 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 386 - HC - Money LaunderingTerritorial Jurisdiction - FIR is registered in Mumbai and properties seized were all forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority in Delhi - predicate Offence - Search and Seizure - Constitutional Validity of search conducted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others [[2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT]] has held that once the predicate offence is ended in discharge or acquittal, the proceedings initiated by the ED cannot be proceeded. Of course, there is no second thought in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. However, in this case the main objection by the learned Special counsel for respondent is that the FIR in predicate offence and FIR in ED case were all registered at Mumbai and the properties seized were all forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority at Delhi and this Court cannot quash or stay the proceedings which has no territorial jurisdiction. The judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Ilanahai vs. The State of Maharashtra [2015 (1) TMI 1487 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and the Delhi High Court in Sayed Mohd. Masood vs.Union of India and Another [[2014 (3) TMI 300 - DELHI HIGH COURT]] were categorically held that when the FIR is registered in some other State, merely the petitioner-accused staying in Karnataka State and bank account is operating at Karnataka, this Court cannot take the cognizance and quash or stay the criminal proceedings in favour of the petitioner. The decision rendered by the Madras High Court as well as the Delhi High Court is agreed upon that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and pass any order against the respondent-ED when the case was registered at Mumbai and properties were seized and forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority at Delhi. Therefore, the only option available to the petitioner is to approach the Mumbai Court having territorial jurisdiction and also an alternative and efficacy remedy available before the Adjudicating Authority at Delhi. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere and pass any order with the action taken by the respondent-ED in the case registered at Mumbai. Petition dismissed.
|