Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Director, Enforcement Directorate - Appellant
Versus
Vilelie Khamo - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5545 of 2024 [@ SLP [CRL.] No.15189 of 2024]
Decided On : 19-12-2024
ORDER :
Mr. M.M. Sundresh, J.:- Leave granted
2. The only issue for consideration is as to whether the High Court is justified in quashing the summons on the premise that the respondent has been discharged in the predicate offence. We also note that the said order was passed by taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the appellant wherein it was stated that the proceedings against the respondent may be closed.
3. We are limiting ourselves to the question of law. What has been issued to the respondent is merely a summons. Simply because he has been discharged in the predicate offence, a Court cannot quash the summons. The questions as to whether the respondent would be arrayed as an accused or not, is a matter which has to be decided at a later stage. In that eventuality, it is well open to the respondent to raise all relevant contentions for the aforesaid purpose including the submissions that since the predicate offence has been quashed, the subsequent action of the appellant arraying him as an accused in the PMLA proceedings would not be sustained in the eyes of law.
4. Suffice it is to state that at this stage we are dealing with a summons that has been issued.
5. In such view of the matter, the impugned order stands set aside and the appellant is at liberty to proceed in pursuance to the summons that had been issued. However, we make it clear that all issues are left open to the respondent, in the event of him being arrayed as an accused.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the respondent may not be arrested as he has been responding to the summons, subject to the condition that he shall continue to cooperate with the investigation.
7. The impugned order is set aside accordingly and the appeal stands allowed.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
A summons cannot be quashed solely due to discharge in the predicate offence; the determination of the accused status is reserved for future consideration.
The High Court's quashing of a summoning order based on a misinterpretation of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was erroneous; the Supreme Court confirmed the summoning order and remanded the discharge app....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of non-interference by the High Court with the Trial Court's order, especially after the rejection of the discharge application, and ....
The Court upheld the legality of a summons issued for enquiry in a criminal case despite the appellant's claims of illegality.
The inherent power of the court can quash proceedings when the substratum of the case is lost due to the discharge of a co-accused.
The court affirmed that disobeying summons is a serious offense under IPC, and the evaluation of merits occurs at trial, not at the cognizance stage.
Bail – When any person accused of or suspected of commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of police station or appears or is brought bef....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
