TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed ECIR registered by the respondent No.1 ED will not survive and as such the said ECIR will have to be quashed and set aside. Petition allowed. - CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4037 OF 2022 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4038 OF 2022 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2023 - REVATI MOHITE DERE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Karan Kadam, Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Abhishek Kale, Mr. Avdhoot Prabhu, Ms. Arya Bile and Mr. Vidhur Malhotra i/b Naik Naik Company, for the Petitioner in WP/4037/2022. Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Abhishek Kale, Mr. Avdhoot Prabhu, Ms. Arya Bile and Mr. Vidhur Malhotra i/b Naik Naik Company, for the Petitioner in WP/4038/2022. Mr. Shreeram Shirsat a/w Mr. Amandeep Singh Sra and Mr. Aman Oomen, for the Respondent No.1 ED. Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2 State. JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties in both the petitions. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, in both the aforesaid petitions, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Mr. Shirsat waives notice on behalf of the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions are set out hereinunder :- Admittedly, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4037 of 2022 is the husband of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4038 of 2022. It appears that Akbar Travels India Private Limited ( Akbar Travels ) had filed a private complaint in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, against Jet Airways (India) Limited ( Jet Airways ) and its erstwhile non-executive directors i.e. the petitioner in both the petitions, alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 471-A of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). Vide order dated 15th February 2020, the trial Court passed an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Cr.P.C ) and directed the Senior Police Inspector of the MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai, to register an FIR as against the petitioner in both the petitions. Pursuant thereto, on 18th February 2020, an FIR bearing C.R. No.66 of 2020 was registered by the said police station against Jet Airways and the petitioner in both the petitions, alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120B of the IPC. It appears that on 20th February 2020, based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court, challenging the order passed by this Court dated 21st December 2020. The Apex Court vide order dated 26th September 2022, dismissed the said SLP. It appears that in the interregnum, the trial Court vide order dated 22nd December 2020 accepted the C Summary Report and rejected the orginal complainant s complaint i.e. of Akbar Travels, as also the protest petition filed by the original complainant. The original complainant i.e. Akbar Travels challenged the said order dated 22nd December 2020 in the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court vide order dated 6th August 2021, dismissed the said Criminal Revision Application, after observing that the order of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness and as such confirmed the trial Court s order, accepting the C Summary Report. Admittedly, the said order has attained finality, inasmuch as, the same has not been challenged, by the original complainant i.e. Akbar Travels. 7. Thus, a perusal of the aforesaid facts clearly show that the order dated 22nd December 2020, passed by the trial Court, accepting the C Summary Report and consequently, dismissing the private complaint has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum. For, the expression derived or obtained is indicative of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence already accomplished. Similarly, in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no action for money-laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. This interpretation alone can be countenanced on the basis of the provisions of the 2002 Act, in particular Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any other view would be rewriting of these provisions and disregarding the express language of definition clause proceeds of crime , as it obtains as of now. 11. Although, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 ED tried to impress upon this Court that the ECIR is a private internal document and not at par with an FIR, and as such is not required to be quashed, the said submission was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
