BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Nitin Jamdar and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh – Applicant
versus
Directorate of Enforcement, through its Director and Anr. – Respondents Criminal Application No.625 of 2021
Decided on 29.10.2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) There is a statutory right of police to investigate cognizable crime without requiring any authority from judicial authority – Functions of judiciary and police are complementary, not overlapping.
(2) Under provisions of PMLA, issuance of summons is part of investigation – High Courts would not interfere and interdict a lawful investigation under its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. unless exceptional circumstances as per settled law are present.
(3) Allegation of mala fides must find a basis in pleadings on oath.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 173 and 482 – Crime investigation – Scope of judicial interference – There is a statutory right of police to investigate cognizable crime without requiring any authority from judicial authority – There is a demarcated boundary between crime detection and crime punishment – Investigation of offence is a field reserved for executive, and it is executive who is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situations, and is duty-bound to investigate offences – Ordinarily, courts are barred from usurping jurisdiction of police since two organs of State operate in two specific spheres of activities, and one ought not to tread over other sphere – Functions of judiciary and police are complementary, not overlapping – Courts would not interfere with investigation or during investigation except in exceptional cases where non-inference will result in a miscarriage of justice – Unless gross abuse of power is made out against those who are in charge of investigation, court should not generally interfere at early stages of investigation – Power to quash criminal proceedings and investigation is exercised very sparingly with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. (Para 17)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Judicial Monitoring of crime investigation – Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at initial stage – Even to proceed on the ground of malice or abuse of powers, High Court must be convinced that there is a clear case of abuse of power – It is not the function of court to monitor investigation as long as investigation does not violate any provision of law, and it must be left to investigating authority to decide course of investigation – Court cannot interfere at every stage of investigation and interrogation as it would affect normal course of investigation – Investigating agency must be permitted to proceed in its own lawful methodology and procedure – High Court should not stifle legitimate prosecution, especially when entire facts are incomplete and hazy and also when evidence has not been collected and produced – Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice, court and judicial process should not interfere at investigation stage of offences. (Para 17)

(C) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 19 and 50 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Issuance of summons – Quashing of summons and protection order – Large scale money laundering affects economic interest of country – Menace of money laundering has international ramifications – Authorities can summon any person to give evidence or to produce any records during course of any investigation and to attend in person or through authorized agents, as such officer may direct – If criminal prosecution is otherwise justifiable and based on adequate evidence, it does not become vitiated on account of malice or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant – Scheme of PMLA not only confers powers on authorities under the Act to take steps to curb money laundering but casts a duty upon them to take effective steps – Unless it is demonstrated that authorities under PMLA were proceeding beyond their jurisdiction or in contravention of any restraint order by court, issuance of summons by authorities when there was no restraint order by court cannot be considered as mala fide – Applicant is one of main accused in FIR filed under Prevention of Corruption Act – Under PMLA, Enforcement Directorate is under a duty to carry out investigation – There is no interim order passed by any court restraining Enforcement Directorate from proceeding further with investigation – If Enforcement Directorate, in absence of any restraint, is proceeding further in performance of its duties, it cannot be called a mala fide exercise of power. (Paras 15, 30, 31, 32 and 34)

(D) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 19 and 50 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Issuance of summons – Quashing of summons and protection order – Under provisions of PMLA, issuance of summons is part of investigation – High Courts would not interfere and interdict a lawful investigation under its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. unless exceptional circumstances as per settled law are present – None of these grounds exists in present case – There is no jurisdictional error in issuance of summonses as they have been issued by officers duly authorized under PMLA. – No case is made out by Applicant for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C to restrain Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 from taking any penal/coercive action against Applicant – If applicant has apprehension of arrest, he has statutory remedy under Section 438 of Cr. P.C by approaching competent court – Applicant has failed to establish case of legal and factual malice on part of Respondent-Directorate in proceeding with investigation in question – Applications rejected. (Paras 45, 51, 52 and 53)

(E) Malafide – Ingredients – Ground of mala fides on part of statutory authority, if it is to be sustained as a legal ground, it must pass test of legal proof – Allegation of mala fides must find a basis in pleadings on oath. (Para 19)

Result: Criminal Application rejected.