The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action and the offenses mentioned in the complaint must align with the territorial jurisdiction of the court where the petitions are filed, and the abuse of process of law can result in dismissal of the petitions and imposition of exemplary costs.

A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.

1. Both these petitions i.e. CRWP-951-2016 and CRWP-984-2016, arise out of the complaint (Annexure P-2) i.e. PMLA Case No.4 of 2015 titled 'Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s National Spot Exchange Limited and others', which arose out of FIR No.216 of 2013 dated 30.09.2013, and process issued thereon vide summons dated 13.01.2016 (Annexure P-3, collectively), pending in the Designated Court-Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. There is also a challenge to the vires of the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act').

2. It appears that in CRWP-951-2016, the Registry of this Court had raised objection No.4 on 16.07.2016 as to how the petition was maintainable in Punjab and Haryana High Court when the case is pending with the Designated Court for the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act at Mumbai. It appears that objection No.4 was answered by saying that the summons and complaint have been served at Panchkula/ Chandigarh and the entire transactions as per the complaint took place within the territory of State of Punjab. The petitions were, thus, placed before this Court for admission hearing and on 18.07.2016, in CRWP-951-2016, this Court made an order and recorded the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners in para-2 thereof that the petitioner's company is located only within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The business is being transacted and the factory premises and the warehouses are located within the jurisdiction of this Court. The summons were also received by the petitioners from the Economic Offences Wing at the addresses within the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Navin Chandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, 2000(3) Crimes 222, as regards the issue of jurisdiction and issued notice of motion and also made an interim order exempting the personal appearance of petitioner No.4-Kamal Kant Dewan and petitioner No.5-Amit Dewan. Thereafter, by another order dated 04.08.2016, this Court injuncted the respondent-Enforcement Directorate from arresting petitioner-Kamal Kant Dewan.

3. In CRWP-984-2016, this Court had by an interim order dated 25.07.2016, granted bail to the petitioners in the said petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accordingly bail has been granted by the trial Court and the charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to continuation of bail, pursuant to the interim orders made by this Court.

Facts :

4. The facts giving rise to these petitions are as under:-

According to the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, a scam took place in Mumbai in respect of National Spot Exchange Limited, which is a platform for trading into various commodities under various segments. The principle accused, according to the respondent-Enforcement Directorate, is Jignesh Shah and the scam is stated to be involving an amount of Rs. 5600 crores. One Pankaj Saraf had lodged a complaint with the Police Station MRA Marg, Mumbai on 30.09.2013 in respect of forgery/fraud giving rise to the said scam in the National Spot Exchange Limited, Mumbai. Accordingly, the investigation was undertaken by registration of the FIR and the police submitted an investigation report. A reference was made to the Enforcement Directorate since it was found that there was huge amount of money laundering, and offences cognizable under the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002. Therefore, the investigation was undertaken by the Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai. The Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai issued summons for investigation to the petitioners and others and started its investigation. After making the investigation, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint contemplated by the Act in the Court of City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, designated