Bombay HC dismisses Plea by Former Shiv Sena MP Anandrao Adsul’s plea to quash ED Summons in Money Laundering Case [Read Judgment]

Bombay High Court - former Shiv Sena MP Anandrao Adsul - ED - money laundering case - Taxscan

The Bombay High Court dismissed the plea by former Shiv Sena MP Anandrao Adsul’s plea to quash Enforcement Directorate summons in a money laundering case.

The petitioner, Anandrao Vithoba Adsul had challenged proceedings initiated by ED in connection with the alleged Rs.980 crore fraud at the City Co-operative Bank.

It was based on Adsul’s complaint that the Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai Police had registered a case for offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal conspiracy under Indian Penal Code for alleged irregularities in the loan disbursement by City Co-operative Bank.

Later, ED issued three summons to Adsul to appear in person or through representatives in connection with the case but Adsul did not respond to all the summons.

The petitioner has prayed to provide copies of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR); for quashing ECIRs; for quashing summons; restrain the ED from issuing further summons and not taking any coercive action pursuant to ECIR.

Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud appearing for Adsul, contended that Adsul was the one who had filed the complaint and the only reason ED was not taking any action against him was because he was hospitalised, and once discharged will be arrested.

The division Bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and SV Kotwal said that Adsul can take recourse to the statutory remedy of anticipatory bail and there is no ground to interfere with the proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

“Considering that the Petitioner has a statutory remedy under section 438 of CrPC and any observation by us on the merits of the matter against the petitioner will prejudice the petitioner in case the petitioner approaches the competent court for anticipatory bail; we refrain from elaborating the same in this order,” the Court said.

However, the Bench did observe that “it cannot be said that there is no material against the petitioner”.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

taxscan-loader