In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Milind N. Jadhav quashed criminal proceedings against the developers Rakesh Brijlal Jain and others, initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case was by set afoot the complainant, Mr. Gul Achhra, against M/s Kamala Developers and M/s Sadguru Enterprises, accusing them of cheating and money laundering in a real estate transaction involving a property in Malad.
Justice Jadhav concluded that the allegations lacked substance and noted that the core issue was a civil dispute disguised as a criminal matter. The court criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for misinterpreting evidence and supporting the complainant’s claims without due diligence.
It was observed that the payments in question were made under a valid renovation agreement, which the complainant acknowledged through his own communications.
Achieve Success: Expert-Led Courses for Tax and Finance Pros, Click Here
The court also noted jurisdictional lapses, ruling that the Vile Parle Police Station and the Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, had no authority over the matter.
It was observed that, “It is thus clear that Respondent No. 2 in order to overcome the conclusion of the Malad Police Station has deliberately with a malafide intention concocted a story which is a complete afterthought about one transaction having taken place at Orchid Hotel in Vile Parle, so that the Vile Parle Police Station could investigate his complaint. This is nothing but a clear abuse of the process of Court and the police machinery. This issue of the territorial jurisdiction of the Vile Parle Police Station and the Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, goes to the root of the matter in this case. They do not have the jurisdiction to investigate and try the complaint. All investigations and actions undertaken by them are therefore a nullity.”
Imposing exemplary costs, the court directed the complainant and the ED to pay ₹1,00,000 each to designated law libraries as a warning against misuse of judicial resources. However, the order was stayed, after the judgment was pronounced in Court, Mr. Shirsat, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3 – ED prayed for stay of judgment to challenge the same before superior Court. His request for stay was allowed for a limited period of time.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
