Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 2260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Nitin W. Sambre, R.N. Laddha, JJ.
Apurva Bhupendra Shah - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3746 of 2022
Decided On : 22-06-2023
Niteen Pradhan, Advocate, Dhruv Balan, Advocate, Ayaz Bilawala, Advocate, Yogesh Gaikwad, Advocate, A.S.Pai, Advocate, J.P.Yagnik, Advocate, Shreeram Shirsat, Advocate, Anna Oommen, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The quashing of a predicate offence underlies the invalidity of subsequent proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, rendering such proceedings unjustified.
Headnote:
MANDAMUS - QUASHING OF ECIR - The court held that once the predicate offence underlying the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was quashed, the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was unjustified. The court emphasized that the quashing of the predicate offence negated the basis for the ECIR, leading to the decision to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus to quash the ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate, arguing that the predicate offence had already been quashed by the court in previous judgments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since the predicate offence was quashed, the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was not justified, and thus the ECIR against the petitioners should also be quashed.
Issues: Whether the quashing of the predicate offence necessitates the quashing of the ECIR registered against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the validity of the ECIR was contingent upon the existence of a valid predicate offence. With the predicate offence quashed, the ECIR could not stand.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the ECIR registered against the petitioners.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
NITIN W.SAMBRE, J. - The respective Counsel are in agreement that the issue raised in all these petitions is same. Even, ECIR registered against all the petitioners is same. As such, by this common judgment, the petitions are disposed of by consent.
2. The prayer is for issuance of Writ of Mandamus for quashing of entire proceedings in ECIR/MBZO-II/15/2019 registered by Respondent No.3-Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai, Zone-II.
3. The prayer is supported by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Niteen Pradhan based on two incidents;
a) quashing of predicate offence by consent vide order of this Court [Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari and G.S.Patel, JJ.] dtd. 19/10/2013 delivered in Writ Petition No.1955 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.2332 of 2013.
b) If the aforesaid predicate offence is already quashed in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.] in Writ Petition No.4037 of 2022 with Writ Petition No.4038 of 2022 decided on 23/2/2023, the ECIR registered against all petitioners, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. Aforesaid contentions are resisted by Mr.Shreeram Shirsat, learned Counsel appearing for RespondentsEnforcement of Directorate. According to him, steps have been taken, as directed in the matter of Naresh Goyal Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement in Writ Petition No.4037 of 2022 with Writ Petition No.4038 of 2022 dtd. 23/2/2023. In addition, his contentions are that an independent complaint dtd. 28/10/2020 addressed to the Economic Offence Wing, against petitioner is pending consideration. According to him, the Court should defer the hearing of present petition for a certain period as the Enforcement Directorate intend to take chance before Apex Court. The fact about quashment of FIR is not in dispute nor there is any challenge to the judgment delivered by this Court quashing predicate offence by consent.
5. The fact remains that ECIR registered against the petitioners are based on the contents in FIR in the offence.
6. In this background, once predicate offence is quashed, very prosecution against the petitioner under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in aforesaid ECIR cannot be said to be justified. Support is drawn support from the judgment of this Court in the matter of Naresh Goyal (supra).
7. As far as contention that independent complaint dtd. 28/10/2020 preferred by Dhanpatraj Bhansali against the petitioners is pending before the Economic Offence Wing, the said complaint will take its own time and cannot be said to be detriment or an impediment, as the complainant in the said complaint dtd. 28/10/2020 is at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law.
8. In the aforesaid background, we deem it fit to allow the present petitions in terms of prayer clause (a).
9. Claim put forth by Mr.Shirsat that hearing of the matters needs to be deferred is also liable to be rejected with regard to the judgment in the matter of Naresh Goyal (supra).
