SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 184


APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI
11. MP-PMLA-10202/CHN/2022 (Misc.)
In FPA-PMLA-1980/CHN/2017 M/s Gold Quest Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
2. MP-PMLA-10203/CHN/2022 (Misc.)
IN FPA-PMLA-1981/CHN/2017 M/s QuestNet Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
3. MP-PMLA-10204/CHN/2022 (Misc.)
IN FPA-PMLA-1989/CHN/2017 M/s. Oakdale Properties Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
4. MP-PMLA-10205/CHN/2022 (Misc.)
IN FPA-PMLA-1990/CHN/2017 M/s. INCA Watches Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
5. MP-PMLA-10206/CHN/2022 (Misc.)
IN FPA-PMLA-1991/CHN/2017 Ms. Pushpam Appala Naidu … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
6. MP-PMLA-10207/CHN/2022 (Misc.)
IN FPA-PMLA-1992/CHN/2017 Mrs. K. Padma … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
7. MP-PMLA-10208/CHN/2022 (Misc.)
IN FPA-PMLA-1993/CHN/2017 Smt. Thanmeemunnisa Begam … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
8. MP-PMLA-10209/CHN/2022 (Misc.)
IN FPA-PMLA-1994/CHN/2017 J. Sabarinathan … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
9. MP-PMLA-10210/CHN/2022 (Misc.)
IN FPA-PMLA-1996/CHN/2017 Shri Munnawar Ahmed … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
10. MP-PMLA-10211/CHN/2022 (Misc.)
IN FPA-PMLA-1997/CHN/2017 Mrs. Jasmine Felix … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent Argued By :
For the Appellants : Mr. M. R. Venkatesh, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Karela, Advocate Mr. Bharat Upreti, Advocate Mr. T. L. Venkateshan, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate Alongwith Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate CORAM SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

 22.05.2023

The above mentioned ten Misc. Applications Nos. 10202 to 10211/CHN/2022 for bringing on record the common order dated 12.09.2022 passed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in Crl.O.P. No. 2279 of 2019 and Crl.M.P. No. 1502 of 2019 are filed by the appellants in ten appeals out of the eleven appeals pending before this Appellate Tribunal, with prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 29.08.2017 passed by Learned Adjudication Authority in O.C. No. 772 of 2017, alongwith Provisional Attachment Order No. 08/2017 dated 05.04.2017. Prayer is made by the applicants to release all the assets attached by the respondents ED as mentioned in para 23 of impugned order in O.C. No. 772 of 2017.

2. As per brief facts of the case, on the basis of written complaint, FIR No. 454/2008 dated 02.05.2008 was registered with Sembium Police Station, Chennai and other places in Tamil Nadu for commission of offences under Section 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chit & Money Circulation Banning Act, 1978, read with Section 420/120B IPC against 25 accused persons named therein. In the said FIR it is alleged by the complainants that M/s QuestNet Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., cheated gullible general public through money circulation scheme in the guise of Multi-Level Marketing Scheme and by way of said act, amassed innumerable amount of wealth. After the investigation police filed single charge-sheet before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on 21.10.2009 vide C.C. No. 3876 of 2009. Thereafter, government of Tamil Nadu attached the properties of accused company vide G.O. No. 95 dated 30.01.2009 and G.O.M. No. 345 dated 24.09.2009.

Meanwhile, respondent ED on the basis of said FIR & charge-sheet registered an ECIR dated 25.04.2016 and initiated investigation under PMLA, 2002. Thereafter, respondent ED issued a Provisional Attachment Order No. 08/2017 dated 05.04.2017 and thereby provisionally attached the movable and immovable properties of the applicants/appellants. Thereafter, respondent ED preferred an Original Complaint No. 772 of 2017 dated 06.05.2017 before Ld. Adjudication Authority under PMLA, at New Delhi. Ld. Adjudication Authority confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order vide impugned order dated 29.08.2017 and aggrieved by the same the appellants filed eleven appeals before this Appellate Tribunal challenging the said attachment orders.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of charge-sheet, M/s QuestNet Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. filed a Writ Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vide Crl.O.P. No. 22943/2009, before Hon’ble Madras High Court for permitting the said company to compound with the complainants in FIR No.454/08, as the offences under Section 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chit & Money Circulation Banning Act, 1978, read with Section 420/120B IPC are compoundable as per Section 320 CrPC, 1973 and thereby quashing the criminal case filed against them.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court vide order dated 16.11.2009 allowed the Criminal Original Petition bearing No. Crl. O.P. 22943 of 2009 filed for compounding of offences in Crime No. 454/2008, stating therein that:

“This Court is of the view that the interests of justice would best be served by directing the lower Court to permit compounding of complaints between the accused company and the claimants as and when the request thereof is made from both the parties. As the case is based on numerous complaints, it becomes necessary to state that prosecution shall cease on such of the complaints compounded”.

Aggrieved by the above order passed by Hon’ble Madras High Court, State of Tamil Nadu filed SLP No. 1547 to 1549 of 2010 (Crl. Appeal No. 823 to 825/2012) before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 26.02.2010 directed the State to furnish a list of complainants to the respondents and when such list is furnished, the respondents are allowed to compound the legitimate claims by giving notice to the concerned police officers. There

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top