Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1233
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
Anubrata Mondal @ Kesto –Petitioner
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
CRR 840 of 2023
Decided On : 04-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kishor Datta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ankur Chowla, Adv., Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Gurpreet Singh Chabra, Adv., Mr. Dipayan Dan, Adv., Ms. Minoti Gomes, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Ld. D.S.G.I., Mr. Arun Kumar Maity, Adv., Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 325, 307, 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 269, 267 –Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Sections 3 & 4 – Attempt to murder – Held, Court to add that application filed by petitioner bearing Criminal Misc.(main) and instant revision have been filed for sole purpose of obviating process issued by Trial Court in Delhi – When petitioner failed to obtain any relief in Delhi High Court, he chooses to move instant application today and submitted on merit. Successive applications filed by petitioner in different Courts for obtaining favourable order are undoubtedly a clear instance of ‘Forum Shopping’ – This practice can never be encouraged and to quote Apex Court, “Unless this practice was nipped in bud, it would encourage unscrupulous litigants and encourage them to entertain idea that they can indulge in forum shopping, which has no sanction in law and certainly no sanctity” – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
1. Indisputably, the petitioner was arrested in connection with E.C.I.R. No.-KLZO/41/2020 under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) corresponding to CT Case No.13/2022 pending before the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18, Rouse Avenue Districts Court, New Delhi by the Enforcement Directorate on 17th November, 2022. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is under judicial custody from before in connection with a CBI case and detained in Asansol District Correctional Home.
2. Immediately after arrest, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court at Delhi bearing No.WP(Crl.)No.2790 of 2022 challenging the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and also the authority of the Head Investigation Unit (HIU), Enforcement Directorate to investigate into the matter. The said writ petition is still pending in the High Court at Delhi.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that on 22nd November, 2022 when the afore-mentioned writ petition came up for hearing before the concerned Bench, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Enforcement Directorate submitted orally that ED would not be proceeding with the production of the petitioner before the Trial Court. Subsequently the said writ petition was listed on several dates and on most of the dates the opposite party took adjournment of hearing of the said writ petition. On 15th December, 2022, the High Court of Delhi passed the following order:-
“CRL.M.A. 24196/2022
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(CRL.)2790/2022 & CRL.M.A.24195/2022
3. This is a petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi.
4. It is stated by Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the Special Judge, PC Act, Rouse Avenue is seized of the issue with regard to the jurisdiction.
5. It is further stated by Mr. Sibal that the respondent in the present case is seeking production warrant against the accused from the Special Judge, Rouse Avenue. However, the Special Judge is yet to determine the merits of the application, including the issue of his jurisdiction.
6. In this view of the matter, it is stated that the petitioner will argue the application u/s 267 Cr.P.C. before the Special Court on the next date of hearing.
7. In the meantime, issue notice. Mr. Sharma, learned SPP accepts notice, seeks and is granted 4 weeks to file a reply/rejoinder before the next date of hearing.
8. Issuance of notice in this petition will not come in the way of the Special Court to decide the application and all issues, including jurisdiction.
9. List on 23.01.2023.”
4. It is submitted by Mr. Kishor Datta, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of oral undertaking given by the learned Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the opposite party, the Enforcement Directorate did not find any necessity to pray for issuance of production warrant against the petitioner. The petitioner also relied on such oral undertaking. In support of his contention, he refers to a report published in an Online News Portal under the name of “Live Law” where it was reported that the Enforcement Directorate gave an oral assurance to the Delhi High Court that it will not execute production warrant till January 9, against Anubrata Mondal. It is also submitted with reference to the order dated 2nd February, 2023 passed in CRL.M.C.7014/2022 and CRL.M.A.No.27148/2022 that the Enforcement Directorate prayed for time before the Delhi High Court to file status report in connection with the case under PMLA against the petitioner but the said status report has not been filed as yet.
5. Mr. Datta next takes me to Annexure-P/9 being an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of the order dated 2nd March, 2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI at Asansol in CBI Case No.01/2021 and speciall
