KUNAL BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned and counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though this application has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report of Sidgora PS Case No.06 of 2012 (G.R. No.212 of 2012), registered under Sections 386, 120B, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and also under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, but he will be confining his prayer as has been made in interlocutory application for release of the vehicles seized in connection with the said case.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the said F.I.R. was lodged by a Police Officer in respect of alleged commission of offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act which the informant does not have any authority to lodge the case and that, so far offences under Sections 386 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, those offences do not get attracted even if the entire allegation levelled in the F.I.R. is taken to be true, but the petitioners would not be pressing this prayer for the reason that when the charge sheet was submitted it confined to the offences udner the Indian Penal Code as Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and also under Section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act were dropped but even the offences under the Indian Penal Code do not get attracted but presently he would not be pressing that prayer rather that right be reserved so that the petitioners may raise this issue at the appropriate stage, under the aforesaid circumstances the petitioners would be confining their prayer for release of the vehicles as many 20 in number seized unauthorisedly under assumption that the police does have power to proceed under Sections 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and, therefore, the case had also been registered, but the police does not have any power to resort to the provisions of Section 17 or Section 18 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and, therefore, when this was realised, charge sheet has not been submitted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and so far the allegation of extortion is concerned, that is based only on the version of the co accused i.e. the brother of petitioner No.2 which will have no evidentiary value as it is said that the co accused disclosed before the police that these two petitioners had purchased 20 vehicles from the money which they had extorted from different people.

(3.) UNDER such circumstances, let this matter be listed on 14.05.2012 so that supplementary affidavit, as stated above, be filed on behalf of the petitioners. Meanwhile, let the seven vehicles bearing registration Nos. (1) JH05AD 8172, (2) JH05AD 8127, (3) JH015AF 8712, (4) JH05AD 8721, (5) JH22A0 441 and two Pocklaine Machines PC 200 excavators be released in favour of the petitioner No.1 on his filing an affidavit that all these seven vehicles belongs to him, in other words, the petitioner No.1 is the owner of the vehicles and Pocklaine Machines PC 200 excavators and, that whenever the vehicles would be required to be produced before the Court, it shall be produced. Put up this case on 14.05.2012.