Bombay High Court
Anita Naresh Goyal vs The Directorate Of Enforcement ... on 17 January, 2023
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere, P. K. Chavan
NISHA Digitally signed by NISHA
SANDEEP CHITNIS
SANDEEP Date: 2023.01.21
CHITNIS 12:46:04 +0530
19&20-wp.4037&4038.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4037 OF 2022
Naresh Goyal ...Petitioner
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4038 OF 2022
Anita Naresh Goyal ...Petitioner
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Abhishek
Kale, Mr. Avdhoot Prabhu and Ms. Arya Bile i/b Naik Naik &
Company, for the Petitioner in WP/4037/2022.
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Abhishek
Kale, Mr. Avdhoot Prabhu and Ms. Arya Bile i/b Naik Naik &
Company, for the Petitioner in WP/4038/2022.
Mr. Shreeram Shirsat a/w Mr. Amandeep Singh Sra, Ms. Nishi
Singhvi, Mr. Shekhar Mane and Ms. Sneha Dhananjay, for the
Respondent No.1 - ED.
Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2 - State.
N. S. Chitnis 1/4
19&20-wp.4037&4038.2022.doc
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 17th JANUARY 2023
P.C. :
1. By these petitions, the petitioners have sought quashing
of the ECIR registered by the respondent No.1 - ED. By way of
interim relief, the petitioners are seeking that no further investigation
be carried out as against the petitioners emanating from the said C.R.
and that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners in respect of
the said ECIR.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respective
petitioners in both the petitions submit, that there is no predicate
offence as required, for the respondent No.1 - ED, to investigate the
said ECIR. They submit that the complaint lodged with the MRA
Marg Police Station, Mumbai has resulted in filing of a 'C' Summary
Report by the police. They submit that even the protest petition filed
by the respondent No.1 - ED was rejected and that the said order has
been confirmed by this Court as well as the Apex Court. They submit
N. S. Chitnis 2/4
19&20-wp.4037&4038.2022.doc
that in this view of the matter, the ECIR cannot be sustained, having
regard to the mandate of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act
(PMLA) and as such the ECIR will have to be quashed and set aside,
there being no predicate offence.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Parvathi Kollur & Anr. vs.
State by Directorate of Enforcement1 and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
& Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.2
4. Mr. Shirsat, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - ED
seeks time.
5. At his request, stand over to 31st January 2023.
1 Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022
2 2022(4) Crimes 119 (SC)
N. S. Chitnis 3/4
19&20-wp.4037&4038.2022.doc
6. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the respective
petitioners in both the petitions, in the meantime, till the next date,
no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners in respect of the said
ECIR.
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 4/4
