Back
2023 Supreme(Pat) 1363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Shalini Thakur, Wife of Sanjeev Kumar Thakur and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India, through the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement – Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.98 of 2023
Decided On : 23-11-2023
For the Petitioners: Mr. Punit Kumar, Adv., Mr. Shiv Pratap, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG-3, Dr. Anand Kumar, AC to AAG-3; Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Adv.; Mr. VNP Sinha, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Vijay Anand, Adv.; Mr. Jainanda Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, Adv.; Mr. Vishesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced the necessity for prompt and effective investigation of economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, highlighting the accountability of State authorities in handling such cases.
Headnote:
EMBEZZLEMENT - INVESTIGATION OF ECONOMIC OFFENCES - PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 - The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, emphasizing the obligation of the authorities to investigate complaints of embezzlement. The court highlighted the failure of the State to act on the complaints and the necessity for the Economic Offence Unit (EOU) to take over the investigation, thereby reinforcing the legal framework for addressing economic crimes and ensuring accountability in public service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ application seeking investigation into the embezzlement of approximately Rs. 100 crores by respondents 7 and 8, a real estate company, who allegedly duped the petitioners under the pretext of providing flats/plots. The petitioners claimed that the State failed to initiate an investigation despite receiving complaints.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the inaction of the State in complying with previous orders and acknowledged the transfer of cases related to the Agrani Group of Companies to the EOU for investigation. The court directed the EOU to proceed with the investigation and complete it within a reasonable timeframe.
Issues: Whether the State has failed in its duty to investigate the embezzlement complaints against respondents 7 and 8, and whether the EOU should take over the investigation as mandated by law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the authorities have a legal obligation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to investigate allegations of economic offences. The transfer of cases to the EOU was deemed necessary to ensure a thorough investigation.
Final Decision: The writ application was disposed of with directions for the EOU to continue and complete the investigation, with the informants allowed to request monitoring of the investigation by the jurisdictional court if necessary.
ORDER :
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.K. Verma, learned AAG-3 for the State assisted by Dr. Anand Kumar, learned Advocate, Mr. V.N.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the Economic Offence Unit (in short ‘EOU’) assisted by Mr. Vijay Anand and Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned senior counsel who has entered appearance today on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8. It is recorded that no Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8, however, the Court has heard learned senior counsel for those respondents.
2. This writ application has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
“(I) For issuance of appropriate order/s, direction/s including a writ preferably in the nature of MANDAMUS for direction/s to Respondent No.-1 to do investigation in embezzlement of Rs.100 crores of the petitioners who have been duped by the respondent no. 7 & 8 on pretext of getting flats/plots for them. Respondent No. 1 actions/inaction and dereliction of the duties vested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has failed to initiate investigation against Respondent No. 7 & 8 for their role in embezzlement of Rs. 100 crores (approx.) wherein Respondent No. 1 despite in receipt of the complaints from petitioners wherein the Petitioners had elaborated the embezzlement of funds of by Respondent No. 7 & 8 which is a Real Estate Company and had taken money from petitioners for providing them flats.
(II) For issuance of a writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent No.-1 (ED) to investigate into the aforesaid case on the basis of several FIRs registered against private respondent no. 7 & 8 and to submit report to this Court and recover money of the Writ Petitioners.
(III) To issue an appropriate writ commanding the Respondents particularly respondent no.-7 & 8 to return back the money with 8% simple interest to the writ petitioners and other allottees or by delivering the property by adjusting in the delaying compensation.
(IV) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
3. Earlier, this Court passed an order on 31.10.2023 which reads as under:-
“Order dated 31.10.2023
Despite opportunity given to learned counsel for the State to file an affidavit, no affidavit has come showing compliance with the direction of this Court contained in the order dated 02.08.2023 passed in Cr.WJC No. 1150 of 2022.
2. Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, learned AC to AAG-3 for the State is not even in a position to say as to why the affidavit could not be filed.
3. In the circumstances, while posting this case to be listed on 23rd November, 2023 for compliance, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand Only) upon the State which will be deposited with the Patna High Court, Legal Services Committee before next date of hearing.
4. If the affidavit showing compliance is not filed by the next date, this Court would be constrained to call upon the Director General of Police, Bihar to appear in person to explain the reasons for such inaction on the part of the State in showing compliance with the order of the Court.”
4. Mr. V.N.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the EOU submits that the Director General of Police, Bihar has already ordered that all the cases relating to Agrani Group of Companies which are under investigation shall be transferred to the EOU and the EOU shall investigate all such cases. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the EOU today. Paragraphs ‘5’ to ‘8’ of the supplementary counter affidavit are being extracted hereunder for a ready reference:-
“5. That it is most humbly and duly submitted that two letters were received vide Ref. No. 109/Legal Cell dated 17.10.2023 and Ref. No. 627/2023 dated 08.11.2023 upon behalf of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna duly signed by the Deputy Inspector General (Human Rights), Bihar, Patna, through which the Additional Director General of Police
