Asadulla Khan vs Directorate Of Enforcement
2022 Latest Caselaw 5893 Kant

                               1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.1457 OF 2017

BETWEEN

1.     ASADULLA KHAN
       S/O RAHMATULLAH KHAN
       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
       NO.D 4/418/2481, 5TH CROSS
       GANDHINAGAR
       MANDYA-571 401.

2.     AYESHA NAJAM
       W/O. SHRI ASADULLA KHAN
       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
       NO.D 4/418/2481, 5TH CROSS
       GANDHINAGAR
       MANDYA-571 401.

3.     ZAREENA TAJ
       M/O. SMT. NASREEN TAJ
       & MOTHER-IN-LAW OF
       SHRI ASADULLA KHAN
       C/O. MR. NAJAMODDEEN
       2ND CROSS, UDAYAGIRI
       MANDYA-571 401.
                                           ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI S.G.BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)

AND

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
                                2


DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
NO.9/1, STATE BANK ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                              ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEDINGS IN
SPL.C.C.NO.36/2013 PENDING IN THE COURT OF PRL. CITY
CIVIL AND S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE (CCH-1), BENGALURU.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos.1, 2 and 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing

the criminal proceedings in Special C.C.No.36/2013

pending on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bengaluru and Special Judge (CCH-1), Bengaluru

for the offence punishable under Section 3 punishable

under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering

Act, 2002 (for short 'PML' Act).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned special counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the prosecution before the trial

Court is that the Deputy Director of the Directorate of

Enforcement (ED) has filed a complaint in ECIR

No.87/BZ/2010 before the Special Court under Sections 43

and 44 of the PML Act by way of PCR No.13/2013 alleging

that the petitioner-company is said to have laundering

money has committed the offence as per Section 3 of the

PML Act punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act read

with Sections 120B, 420 of IPC, Sections 13(2) read with

Section 131 D of the P.C. Act. The same is challenged

before this Court by the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and

4.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly

contested the matter challenging the taking cognizance by

the Special Court stating that the petitioners were residing

at Mandya, the alleged offence committed at Mandya

District, therefore, the Court at Bengaluru have no

jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and on the point of

jurisdiction, the complaint is not sustainable, hence, liable

to be dismissed and further contended that the learned

Sessions Judge while taking cognizance has not stated

anything about the offence committed by the petitioners

and for what offence, the cognizance was taken, but has

issued summons without application of mind. Therefore, on

this ground, the proceedings shall be quashed.

5. Per contra, Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned

Special counsel for the respondent has objected the

petition and contended that as per the Notification issued

by the Government of India in the year 2006 itself, for

Karnataka, the Principal City Civil Court, Bengaluru

assigned the jurisdiction for the trial of offences committed

in almost fourteen Districts including Mandya District and

from Bagalkot to Raichur District and another 13 Districts,

Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Raichur was

designated as Special Court. Therefore, he has contended

that the objection raised by the petitioners' counsel is not

sustainable. Learned Special counsel has also contended

that the trial Court has already framed the charges on

20.02.2021 and subsequently, the complainant has been

examined as PW.1 on 04.09.2021 and the petitioners'

counsel has already cross-examined PW.1 on 22.09.2021

prior to the staying of proceedings by this Court and

therefore, once the framing of charge was not challenged

and evidence was commenced, when the trial Court

already stated that there is no material to frame the

charges, this Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings

by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of

the records, admittedly, the petitioners are said to be

residing at Mandya. The alleged offence is said to have

committed by the petitioners at Mandya District. It is

pertinent to note that the Government of India vide

Gazette Notification dated 01.06.2006 issued under

Section 43(1) of the PML Act, 2002 and for Karnataka, the

Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

established as the Special Court for the offences

committed in various Revenue Districts including

Bengaluru, Tumakuru, Kolar, Mandya, Hassan District etc.

Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners stating that Principal City Civil Court, Bengaluru

has no jurisdiction is not sustainable and the ground urged

by the learned counsel for the petitioner is sustainable and

hence, rejected.

7. The another contention raised by the learned

counsel is that the trial Court while taking cognizance has

not applied the mind and also not disclosed the offences in

the order while taking cognizance, thereby, the order of

taking cognizance is not sustainable under the law.

8. Per contra, the learned Special counsel for the

respondent has also objected the same by relying upon the

unreported judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in Crl.P.No.1960/2017 dated 01.03.2018, where

in the similar situation, the Co-ordinate Bench has held

that once the cognizance was taken and after the lapse of

nine years, the said contention cannot be taken at belated

stage and once the petitioners moved a discharge

application seeking discharge and the same was

considered on merits and rejected, once again invoking

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained when there is

a prima facie case made out against the petitioners. Here

in this case, it is an admitted fact that the trial Court has

taken the cognizance on 11.02.2013 and subsequently, the

petitioners appeared through their counsel and filed bail

petition stating that they have been seeking bail for the

offence punishable under Section 3 of the PML Act.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused persons did

not know about the offences for which they have been

summoned. That apart, the Special Court has framed the

charges holding that there is sufficient material to frame

charges for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the

PML Act and trial also commenced. PW.1 is fully examined

including the cross-examination and re-examination. Now

this Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings holding

that there is no material placed on record. Once the

competent court of law held that there is material placed

on record for framing of charge, the question of quashing

the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not

arise as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various

cases, when there is abundant material placed on record

and charges were framed by the trial Court, the evidence

of the complainant is also completed. Therefore, I am of

the view that the petition is devoid of merits and liable to

be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GBB