Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Dinesh Pratap Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 9, 91, 102, 103, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 188, 189, 321 of 2023
Decided On : 04-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common question of law in multiple petitions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background details of land acquisition and alleged fraud. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. arguments against returning the complaint. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. jurisdictional arguments regarding separate complaints. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. legal framework for complaints and cognizance. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. court analysis regarding the merits of complaints. (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 7. final judgment dismissing all petitions. (Para 102 , 103) |
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. Since a common question of law is involved in all these petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India (“the complainant”) filed a complaint against all the petitioners and some other persons in the court of Special Judge (PMLA)/Sessions Judge, Dehradun, based on which, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 454 of 2021, Directorate of Enforcement vs. Dinesh Pratap Singh and others (“the case”) was instituted. On 28.04.2022, the court observed that all the accused named in the complaint did not commit the offence of money laundering in the course of same transaction because different ‘Proceeds of Crime’ was generated in different transactions and all accused persons were not involved in money laundering of each and every ‘Proceeds of Crime’. The court observed that the complaint was liable to be returned for filing fresh and separate complaints, in accordance with the provisions of Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 28.04.2022, the complaint was returned. This order is impugned in all the petitions. Thereafter, the complainant filed seven separate complaints as follows:
| S. No. | Case No. | Name of the accused |
| 1. | Special Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2022 | Jagdish Arora, Barinder Singh, Arpan Kumar, Dinesh Pratap Singh, Bhole Lal, Anil Kumar and Vikas Kumar |
| 2. | Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2022 | Balwant Singh, Barinder Singh, Arpan Kumar, Jasdeep Singh Goraya, M/s Fibremarx Papers Private Ltd. and Dinesh Pratap Singh, Bhagat Singh Phonia, Sanjay Kumar Chauhan and Madan Mohan Padaliya |
| 3. | Special Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2022 | Charan Singh, Ravinder Singh, Navneet Singh, Dinesh Pratap Singh, Bhole Lal, Anil Kumar and Vikas Kumar |
| 4. | Special Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2022 | Ramesh Kumar, Om Prakash, Arpan Kumar, Dinesh Pratap Singh, Bhole Lal, Anil Kumar and Vikas Kumar |
| 5. | Special Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2022 | Vikram Jeet Singh, Mandeep Singh, M/s Tera Tera Seeds and Dinesh Pratap Singh |
| 6. | Special Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2022 | Harjinder Singh, Jasdeep Singh Goraya, M/s Fibremarx Papers Private Ltd. and Dinesh Pratap Singh, Bhagat Singh Fonia, Sanjay Kumar Chauhan and Madan Mohan Padaliya |
| 7. | Special Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2022 | Dinesh Pratap Singh, Jishan@ Jishan Ahmed and Sudhir Chawla |
3. In some of the above seven complaints, the processes have already been issued. In these petitions, challenge has been made to order dated 28.04.2022, passed in the case, by which a joint complaint against the petitioners and others has been returned for filing fresh and separate complaints as well as all the seven complaints and processes issued in them (the petitioner Dinesh Pratap Singh has challenged cognizance and summoning order passed in all the seven complaints as well as their proceedings); in other petitions the challenge is made as follows:
(ii) The petitioner Sanjay Kumar Chauhan has challenged the order dated 28
Money laundering charges under PMLA require clear evidence linking individuals to a scheduled offence, which was absent in the petitioners' case, leading to quashing of proceedings.
Cheating - Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on accused and with a vie....
The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and with abundant caution, and criminal proceedings should not be used to settle purely civil disputes.
The land acquisition process is valid despite claims of forgery in records without prior objections raised during the process.
The court affirmed that prima facie evidence of conspiracy and corruption justified the continuation of proceedings against the accused, emphasizing the obligation to verify property ownership before....
The issuance of search warrants requires a clear application of mind by the Magistrate, necessitating justification and adherence to procedural fairness in investigations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
