B.SHANMUGAM Vs. KARTHIK DASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) Mr.B.Shanmugam, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.12159 of 2022 has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records in connection with the ECIR/MDSZO/21/2021 issued by the respondent and quash the same as illegal, unconstitutional, non est in the eye of law.

(2.) Mr.Sriram Panchu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.12159 of 2022 pleaded that Mr.B.Shanmugam has been in the field of Desktop Publishing (DTP from 1991 in the name and style of "Soft Point Inc" and providing services of manpower towards the recruitment in private, Government and non-Governmental organizations for the jobless youths, on goodwill and on minimum consultation charges. In the year 2014, when the Department of Transport of the State of Tamil Nadu announced the recruitment process, the petitioner informed one Rajkumar and other people about the vacancies existed then and the requisite qualification to participate in the selection process. Based on the said information, Mr.Rajkumar introduced Mr.Arulmani, the de-facto complainant in FIR No.344 of 2018. Again Mr.Arulmani introduced about 13 people for the valid services to be provided by the petitioner, for which the petitioner collected consultation charges from the said Arulmani, the de-facto complainant. When the candidates who had participated in the selection process were unable to get the jobs, for the reason that the Department has chosen meritorious candidates who secured more marks than the unsuccessful candidates, they insisted the said Arulmani to return the consultation charges, for which the petitioner refused saying that the consultation charges are part and parcel of his profession. When the petitioner denied the return of consultation charges, a dispute arose between the de-facto complainant and the petitioner. After sometime, the petitioner and the de-facto complainant had settled the dispute for repayment of consultation charges in the year 2019. In the meanwhile, since the petitioner in Writ Petition No.18213 of 2022 left the ruling party and joined the opposition party, due to the political rivalry in intra party dispute and when the de-facto complainant had no intention to proceed with the alleged crime, since there was harmony and peace among the parties, due to political vendetta, FIR came to be registered, based on which, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, he has received the summons of appearance from the Special Court. Subsequently, a charge sheet in C.C.No.8591 of 2019 was filed on 12/4/2019 before the Special Metropolitan Magistrate for trial of CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore. Thereafter, the said C.C.No.8591 of 2019 was transferred to the Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and re-numbered as C.C.No.25 of 2021 on 7/4/2021, that was challenged by the petitioner and the de-facto complainant before the High Court in Criminal Original Petition No.13374 of 2021. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the de-facto complainant, accused and victims have jointly compromised the issue, the accused pleaded to the High Court to quash the entire proceedings, since the matter has been mutually and amicably settled among them. A supporting affidavit has also been filed by the de-facto complainant and 13 victims who were also arrayed as witnesses to the calendar case and the High Court, to secure the ends of justice, following the principles set out by the Apex Court in the judgment in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, quashed the entire proceedings in C.C.No.25 of 2021 vide order dtd. 30/7/2021 passed in Criminal Original Petition No.13374 of 2021, on the premise that if the trial is allowed to proceed, the parties/witnesses may turn hostile and they would report that there was no such occurrence etc. In the meanwhile, another final report was filed by the CCB, Chennai in C.C.No.24 of 2021 on 18/3/2021 showing the petitioner as Accused No.2, though there was no allegation or complaint against him. A mere perusal of the final report would reveal that the statements and findings are entirely false, contrary to the truth and fabricated for the reasons best known to the CCB, Chennai. A similar complaint lodged by one Mr.Devasagayam against various others was registered in Crime No.441 of 2015 dtd. 25/10/2015. But when the First Information Report does not involve the petitioner herein in any manner, as he was unconnected to the entire dispute, the CCB, Chennai filed the final report in C.C.No.24 of 2021 showing the petitioner as Accused No.2. But there was no allegation or complaint and not even a statement against the petitioner. In the meanwhile, one witness R.B.Arunkumar filed a petition for further investigation in C.C.No.3627 of 2017, wherein also it has been stated that the petitioner was not connected to the occurrence, though specific complaints were raised against others in C.C.No.24 of 2021. The de-facto complainant Mr.Devasagayam also filed Criminal Original Petition No.15122 of 2021 seeking for de novo investigation, on the ground that the investigation culminated in the final report in C.C.No.24 of 2021 dtd. 18/3/2021 is contrary to the complaint of the de-facto complainant and this Court had granted interim stay of further proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2021 observing that a prima facie case has been made out on the faulty and motivated investigation in C.C.No.24 of 2021. In the meanwhile, the petitioner received summons dtd. 19/8/2021 from the office of the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madurai Sub Zonal Office in connection with ECIR/MDSZO/21/2021. Immediately the petitioner appeared before them on 7/9/2021 and co-operated with the inquiry. But he was lodged inside a room and forced to give motivated statements. After few months, the petitioner received another summon dtd. 22/2/2022 to appear before them on 3/3/2022 and a further notice dtd. 4/3/2022 was issued directing him to appear on 10/3/2022. When the petitioner and his Auditor appeared and furnished various documents, they were unable to proceed and it has been finally argued that when the proceedings in C.C.No.25 of 2021 were also quashed by this Court in Criminal Original Petition No.13374 of 2021 vide order dtd. 30/7/2021 and the proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020 have been stayed until further orders by this Court in Criminal Revision Case No.224 of 2021 vide order dtd. 18/4/2022 and the proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2021 have also been stayed until further orders by this Court in Criminal Original Petition No.15122 of 2021 vide order dtd. 1/10/2021, there is no basis for proceeding against the petitioner under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others, 2022 (10) SCALE 577 has held that in the absence of proceeds of crime, the authorities under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act cannot step in or initiate any prosecution, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, by quashing the impugned proceedings.

(3.) Mr.Aryama Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.18209 of 2022 pleaded at the outset that his client's case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhury and others case (supra) in his favour, again proceeding further contended that Mr.R.V.Ashok Kumar is the brother of Mr.V.Senthil Balaji, who was the former Transport Minister during the period from 2011 to 2015. As his brother left the ruling party and joined the opposition party, to wreak political vendetta and due to political rivalry to fix him, to settle the political scores, allegations were levelled against the petitioner that he received money for appointment of Drivers and Conductors in the Transport Department through the other accused in the calendar cases. Due to the dispute cropped up in this regard, Mr.Devasagayam, Mr.Arulmani and Mr.V.Ganesh Kumar filed criminal cases, which came to be registered by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai for the alleged offence under Ss. 406, 420 read with 34 of IPC in FIR No.441 of 2015; for the offence under Ss. 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC in FIR No.298 of 2017 and for the offence under Ss. 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC in FIR No.344 of 2018, respectively. Consequent to the registration of the above First Information Reports, investigation agency proceeded with the investigation and the final reports were filed on various dates. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was arrayed as Accused No.2 only in Crime No.344 of 2018 for the offence under Ss. 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC. One of the co-accused, Mr.B.Shanmugam challenged the final report filed in C.C.No.25 of 2021 before this Court in Criminal Original Petition No.13374 of 2021, however, the matter was settled amicably between the de-facto complainant and the other accused. After entering into a memorandum of compromise with the de-facto complainant, Mr.K.Arulmani filed an affidavit in Criminal Original Petition No.13374 of 2021 stating that the case was proceeded with an intention to settle the political scores. The proceedings in C.C.No.25 of 2021 were also quashed by this Court vide order dtd. 30/7/2021 in Criminal Original Petition No.13374 of 2021, on the ground that the parties had entered into a compromise and amicably settled the matter among themselves. Therefore, the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent are vexatious and non est in the eye of law and liable to be declared as illegal and arbitrary. When there is no predicate or scheduled offence against the petitioner and when the scheduled offence which becomes essential and fundamental to initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act was quashed, consequently the proceedings under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act cannot survive, hence, the summon issued under Sec. 50 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act is not legally sustainable, therefore the same is liable to be quashed.