9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt at Delhi bearing No. WP (Crl.)No.2790 of 2022 challenging the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and also the authority of the Head Investigation Unit (HIU), Enforcement Directorate to investigate into the matter. The said writ petition is still pending in the High Court at Delhi. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that on 22nd November, 2022 when the afore-mentioned writ petition came up for hearing before the concerned Bench, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Enforcement Directorate submitted orally that ED would not be proceeding with the production of the petitioner before the Trial Court. Subsequently the said writ petition was listed on several dates and on most of the dates the opposite party took adjournment of hearing of the said writ petition. On 15th December, 2022, the High Court of Delhi passed the following order:- "CRL.M.A. 24196/2022 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Applications stand disposed of. 3. This is a petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi. 4. It is stated by Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14/2022, wherein the learned Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate gave oral assurance that the production warrant against the petitioner issued by the Trial Court at Delhi would not be executed and the said assurance is still in force. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not served with a copy of the application filed by the Superintendent, Asansol District Correctional Home on 2nd March, 2023. Be it mentioned here that on 1st March, 2023, the Superintendent, Asansol Correctional Home received an e-mail from the Additional Director, HIU, New Delhi directing him to produce the petitioner in the Trial Court at Delhi in connection with the above-mentioned case under PMLA. The learned Judge, Special Court, CBI, Asansol allowed the prayer made by the Superintendent of the Correctional Home directing him to cause production of the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, (P.C.Act.), CBI-18 at Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi. Objection filed by the petitioner was subsequently rejected by the learned Judge at Asansol. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Datta that the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Bhattacharyya further draws my attention to Paragraph 14 of the aforesaid application and submits that Paragraph 14 of the instant application is same and identical. In the instant application the petitioner has assailed the order dated 2nd March, 2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Asansol in Special CBI Case No.1 of 2021 and pending disposal of the application prays for stay of operation of the said order. It is contended by the learned Deputy Solicitor General that purpose and purport of both the applications are similar, i.e. to stall execution of production warrant. Mr. Bhattacharyya further submits under instruction that Mr. Ankur Chowla, learned Advocate for the petitioner yesterday undertook at Delhi High Court that the petitioner would not press the present application. On such condition, the Hon'ble Bench of Delhi High Court heard the application filed by the petitioner, but refused to pass any interim order of stay. As soon as the petitioner failed to achieve favourable order, the instant application has been moved suppressing the undertaking given by the learned Advocate for the petitioner ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anction in law and certainly no sanctity. Another category of forum shopping is approaching different courts for the same relief by making a minor change in the prayer clause of the petition. Similarly, substituting some petitioners for others with a view to confer jurisdiction on a particular court would also amount to forum shopping by that group of petitioners. Another form of forum shopping is where a litigant makes allegations of a perceived conflict of interest against a Judge requiring the Judge to recuse from the proceedings so that the matter could be transferred to another Judge. Mr. Bhattacharyya also takes me to a judgment dated 4th January, 2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court upon an application for bail filed by the petitioner in connection with CBI case. The said application was registered as CRM(DB) 4229 of 2022. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgement observed in Paragraph 16 as hereunder:- "Apart from the aforesaid materials showing intimidation of witnesses a very disturbing feature has come to our notice. A production warrant had been obtained against the petitioner by Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Judge, Special CBI Court at Asansol is under challenge before this Court. Much has been said, criticizing the judicial process undertaken by the Trial Court at Delhi and also by the High Court at Delhi, but these are not the issues for decision before this Court and I consciously choose not to make any comment with regard to such submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner's case is that the Enforcement Directorate orally assured the Hon'ble Bench at Delhi High Court that they would not execute production warrant issued against the petitioner by the Trial Court on 19th December, 2022. Such assurance was not recorded in any of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Judges at Delhi High Court in different proceedings. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relies on a report published by "Live Law" in support of his contention. Though it is needless to say that this Court cannot take judicial notice on publication of certain news in an Online News Portal, it is pertinent to mention that the said report states that the ED gave an oral assurance to Delhi High Court that it would not execute the production warrant against the petitioner till 9th January, 2023. There is abs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, it is presumed that there is no acute reason to hold that the petitioner is unfit by reason of his sickness from being removed to Delhi. I have already held that the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2023 is interlocutory in nature. The order did not decide or touch upon the rights and liabilities of the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order is not revisable. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner repeatedly submits that this Court has inherent power to act under the facts and circumstances of the case specially when the petitioner has challenged territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court and the said matter is still pending for adjudication. I am of the view that since Section 482 can only be invoked to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Code or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, it is found from the pleadings and the relief sought for by the petitioner that the petitioner has been trying to obstruct the process of the Court. This is not the only instance. The petitioner repeatedly filed series of applications to resist the Enforcement Directorate from ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of the production of the petitioner before the said Court. Before I part with, I am to add that the application filed by the petitioner bearing Criminal Misc.(main) No.7014 of 2022 and the instant revision have been filed for the sole purpose of obviating the process issued by the Trial Court in Delhi. When Criminal Misc.(main) No.7014 of 2022 was moved on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Advocate submitted before the Hon'ble Bench that the petitioner would not press for the instant revision specially fixed today by the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. When the petitioner failed to obtain any relief in Delhi High Court, he chooses to move the instant application today and submitted on merit. Successive applications filed by the petitioner in different Courts for obtaining favourable order are undoubtedly a clear instance of 'Forum Shopping'. This practice can never be encouraged and to quote the Apex Court, "Unless this practice was nipped in the bud, it would encourage unscrupulous litigants and encourage them to entertain the idea that they can indulge in forum shopping, which has no sanction in law and certainly no sanctity". In view of such circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
