KARAMPAL GOYAL Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the aforementioned petitions shall be disposed of by this common order having been filed against the same order dated 08.12.2010 (P4) as the question involved in these petitions is identical. However, for the sake of arguments, the facts are being taken from CRM M 693 of 2011.

(2.) The petitioner herein has filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the order dated 08.12.2010 (P4) as well as all the subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof, which is a summoning order passed by the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred upon under sub section (2) and sub Section (3) of Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (herein after to be called as Act, 2002) After noticing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, notice of motion was issued on 12.01.2011 for 24.02.2011. In response thereto, reply was filed in the registry on 25.05.2011. Meanwhile, the matter was listed for hearing before the Adjudicating Authority as per Section 5(5) of the Act, 2002 on 26.06.2011. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application before this Court seeking stay of the proceedings. However, on 07.06.2011, learned counsel for the respondent gave an undertaking before this Court that the final order shall not be passed till the next date of listing. On 12.07.2011, learned counsel for the respondent also moved an application for pre-poning the date of hearing from 24.08.2011 to an early date as the period of limitation prescribed under the Act was going to expire on 05.08.2011. However, this Court declined to prepone the said date of hearing vide order dated 15.07.2011.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent, at the very outset, raised the preliminary objection that the petitioner has come before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the summoning order dated 08.12.2010 (P4) as well as all the subsequent proceedings initiated under the Act, 2002 but the said proceedings under the Act, 2002 were quasi judicial in nature and there was a specific provision for filing of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority constituted under the Act, 2002. Thus, the present petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner under the Act,2002.