2021 (11) TMI 556

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the writ petition, the respondent-petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "(a) to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction to set aside and quash the order dated 10.08.2017 by which the Respondent No.3/ Bank is directed to freeze the Bank Account and to further release the Bank Account immediately. (b) to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction to declare the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by respondent No.1, 2 and 3 to be illegal, without jurisdiction and ultra vires to the Act and rules of the prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and related provisions. (c) Pass any such other order or orders as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case in the favour of pet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Single Judge referred to the order passed by the Supreme Court in the said case and gave following interim protection to the petitioner in the impugned order:- " Since the petitioner as well as Anil Kumar Gadodia are commonly arrayed as defendants in the complaint filed under Section 5 (5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. I would respectfully follow the order passed by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gadodia's case and restrain the respondent/s from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner in the meanwhile as directed by the Supreme Court." Learned counsel for the Department submitted that the attachment of the petitioner's property was effected in the year 2021. In the petition which was filed in the year 2017 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cted by the Supreme Court." Firstly, this direction preventing the department from taking coercive action against the petitioner nowhere includes stay against the order of attachment imposed by the Department. In any case the order of attachment has not been challenged and could not have been stayed. Thus, as regards the impugned order of learned Single Judge, we clarify that there is no stay against the attachment of the properties of the petitioner by virtue of the Department's order dated 18.01.2021. Now coming to the question of stay against the criminal investigation and prosecution, firstly petition was not in nature of quashing the proceedings invoking the powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Secondly there was no challenge....