Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1348 (BOM)

Apurva Bhupendra Shah v. Union of India

2023-06-22

NITIN W.SAMBRE, R.N.LADDHA

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER NITIN W.SAMBRE, J. - The respective Counsel are in agreement that the issue raised in all these petitions is same. Even, ECIR registered against all the petitioners is same. As such, by this common judgment, the petitions are disposed of by consent. 2. The prayer is for issuance of Writ of Mandamus for quashing of entire proceedings in ECIR/MBZO-II/15/2019 registered by Respondent No.3-Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai, Zone-II. 3. The prayer is supported by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Niteen Pradhan based on two incidents; a) quashing of predicate offence by consent vide order of this Court [Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari and G.S.Patel, JJ.] dtd. 19/10/2013 delivered in Writ Petition No.1955 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.2332 of 2013. b) If the aforesaid predicate offence is already quashed in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.] in Writ Petition No.4037 of 2022 with Writ Petition No.4038 of 2022 decided on 23/2/2023, the ECIR registered against all petitioners, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Aforesaid contentions are resisted by Mr.Shreeram Shirsat, learned Counsel appearing for RespondentsEnforcement of Directorate. According to him, steps have been taken, as directed in the matter of Naresh Goyal Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement in Writ Petition No.4037 of 2022 with Writ Petition No.4038 of 2022 dtd. 23/2/2023. In addition, his contentions are that an independent complaint dtd. 28/10/2020 addressed to the Economic Offence Wing, against petitioner is pending consideration. According to him, the Court should defer the hearing of present petition for a certain period as the Enforcement Directorate intend to take chance before Apex Court. The fact about quashment of FIR is not in dispute nor there is any challenge to the judgment delivered by this Court quashing predicate offence by consent. 5. The fact remains that ECIR registered against the petitioners are based on the contents in FIR in the offence. 6. In this background, once predicate offence is quashed, very prosecution against the petitioner under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in aforesaid ECIR cannot be said to be justified. Support is drawn support from the judgment of this Court in the matter of Naresh Goyal (supra). 7. As far as contention that independent complaint dtd. 6. In this background, once predicate offence is quashed, very prosecution against the petitioner under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in aforesaid ECIR cannot be said to be justified. Support is drawn support from the judgment of this Court in the matter of Naresh Goyal (supra). 7. As far as contention that independent complaint dtd. 28/10/2020 preferred by Dhanpatraj Bhansali against the petitioners is pending before the Economic Offence Wing, the said complaint will take its own time and cannot be said to be detriment or an impediment, as the complainant in the said complaint dtd. 28/10/2020 is at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law. 8. In the aforesaid background, we deem it fit to allow the present petitions in terms of prayer clause (a). 9. Claim put forth by Mr.Shirsat that hearing of the matters needs to be deferred is also liable to be rejected with regard to the judgment in the matter of Naresh Goyal (supra).