TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate offence is stayed, the proceedings in PML Act should also be stayed until disposal of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as the judgment of the Madras High Court. 5. The learned Senior counsel further contended that Oshiwara Police, Mumbai registered the FIR in the year 2013 and ED also registered the FIR in the year 2013, but, from last ten years, they have not taken any action in this matter and after staying the predicate offence by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2023, the ED raided the company of the petitioner and freezed the account due to which, the petitioner is suffering heavy loss and the company required to make salary to the employees, the company has to pay GST, TDS deductions, etc., the company required to pay Rs.12.9 crores per month and various expenditures and because of freezing the account, the company would put into hardship and loss, therefore, prayed for defreezing the account by declaring the search conducted by the ED as illegal. The learned Senior counsel further contended that the very search and seize is illegal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IR in ECIR/MBZO1/15/2013 and it is also an admitted fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the predicate offence in Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s).31/2017 on 27.03.2017. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mantri Developers Private Limited and others vs. ED in W.P.No.20713/2022 (GM-RES) and in the case of MS. C. Uma Reddy and others vs. ED in W.P.No. 19337/2022 (GM-RES) dated 14.12.2022 , has taken similar view that once the predicate offence is stayed, the proceedings in the Act registered by the ED cannot be proceeded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India extending the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure beyond the territorial limits of the said High Court based on the fact that the part of offence is committed outside the territorial limits of the said High Court. 40. Thus, in my considered opinion, so far as the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of quashing the F.I.R. is concerned, the only criteria is the situs of the Authority who has registered the case and not the place of commission of the crime either in full or in part. Similarly, the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash a Criminal case also does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the said High Court if the case is pending on the file of an Authority, who is located outside the territorial limits of the said High Court. This conclusion is inescapable, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 145 (SC), wherein the Court has held that the concept of cause of action which is relevant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
