TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be entertained to enforce or protect the alleged sanctity of proceedings pending before the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal. (ii) Whether the communication issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be treated as an impermissible direction to register the FIR and whether the resulting investigation was liable to be quashed.
Issue (i): Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be entertained to enforce or protect the alleged sanctity of proceedings pending before the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal.
Analysis: The relief sought was, in substance, a request to enforce superior court and tribunal orders and to obtain protection against parallel action by the investigating agencies. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is not a substitute for approaching the competent forum that passed the orders said to be affected. The Court held that it had no jurisdiction to grant such relief in the present proceedings.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the communication issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be treated as an impermissible direction to register the FIR and whether the resulting investigation was liable to be quashed.
Analysis: The Court treated the communication as information shared under the statutory mechanism, not as a command binding the police to register a particular case. It noted that the predicate offences included cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code and that the petitioner failed to show any violation of Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court further held that interference at the threshold would amount to obstructing the statutory process of investigation.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: No ground was made out for notice or interference, and the petition was rejected at the threshold.
Ratio Decidendi: Information shared by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not become an unlawful direction merely because it leads the police to register cognizable offences, and the inherent criminal jurisdiction cannot be used to short-circuit an ongoing investigation.
TaxTMI 
