2017 (7) TMI 310 - HC - Money Laundering

Court affirms separate offenses, emphasizes legal provisions

Pal Pabla And Others Versus Gurnam Singh, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to not club the complaint and FIR cases, emphasizing the distinction between separate offenses. The court ... Offense under Money Laundering - application filed under Section 210 Cr.P.C. for clubbing the complaint case bearing under Sections 5(5) and 45 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with case bearing FIR No.131 registered at Police Station Nawanshahr, under Sections 420, 177, 191, 206, 207 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code - Held that:- The provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.c. would show that when investigation is in progress in a police case, only then proceedings should be stayed in a complaint case, but once investigation has been completed, then the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. has no application. It is stated that charge-sheet in the case instituted on police report has already been submitted, therefore, no investigation by the police was in progress in relation to the said offence at the point of time. The Court after discussing the law held that the police has already submitted the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr on 15.12.2014. Though, the case was committed on 30.04.2015, the complaint was filed on 04.12.2014. At the time of filing the complaint, no investigation was pending before the police. Thus, the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. are not applicable in the present case. The learned trial Court has correctly held that the offences under the complaint and in the FIR case are entirely different and both the cases cannot be clubbed together. Issues Involved:1. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the Special Judge.2. Interpretation of Section 210 Cr.P.C. regarding clubbing of complaint and FIR cases.3. Application of Section 210 Cr.P.C. in the context of ongoing police investigation.4. Consideration of separate offenses in the complaint and FIR cases.Analysis:1. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order of the Special Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing their application to club a complaint case with an FIR case. The complaint and FIR cases related to the same transaction, and the petitioners argued for their clubbing based on Section 210 Cr.P.C.2. Section 210 Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and a police investigation for the same offense. The provision mandates that if an investigation is in progress in a police case related to a complaint case, the proceedings of the inquiry or trial shall be stayed until a report is received from the investigating police officer.3. In this case, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint, and the police conducted searches leading to the recovery of incriminating documents and FDRs. The police submitted a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, indicating the completion of the investigation. As no investigation was pending at the time of filing the complaint, the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. were deemed inapplicable.4. The trial court correctly held that the offenses in the complaint and FIR cases were distinct, and therefore, they could not be clubbed together. The court found no illegality in the trial court's order, stating that it was in accordance with the law and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as lacking merit.Conclusion:The High Court, after a detailed analysis of the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. and the circumstances of the case, upheld the trial court's decision to not club the complaint and FIR cases. The judgment emphasized the importance of distinguishing between separate offenses and the applicability of relevant legal provisions in determining the course of legal proceedings.