TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1090
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Maroria, AOR Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Ms. Somiran Sharma, Adv. Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv. Ms. Deepabali Datta, Adv. Ms. Abnipriya, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijnan Jha, AOR Ms. Bhagya K. Yadav, Adv. Ms. Sadhvi Chhabra, Adv. Mr. Chetan Chawla, Adv. Mr. Vikram Nankani, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj Nair, AOR Ms. Vishrutyi Sahni, Adv. Ms. Ridhima Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitesh Jain, Adv. Mr. Subhash Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Vutts, Adv. Mr. Chandansingh Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sarthi, Adv. Ms. Siya Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Mahesh Aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 have been set aside with a direction that no further coercive action, search and seizure or summons arising therefrom shall be initiated/taken/executed against the respondents. The High Court of Delhi has quashed the above-mentioned proceedings on the premise that the predicate offence, namely, FIR Crime No.0129/2021 dated 13.04.2021, registered at Wada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC), against the respondents- Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (in short, "IHFL") and others, have since been quashed by the Bombay High Court vide impugned judgment dated 04.05.2022. 5. We have heard learned Additional Solici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers preferred W.P. No.1805/2021 before the Bombay High Court challenging the order of the Magistrate dated 07.04.2021 and consequential FIR dated 13.04.2021 registered at Wada Police Station and all the proceedings arising therefrom. The primary ground taken in those proceedings was that the complaint was prima facie mala fide as it contained false statements, not supported by any affidavit and that the nature of offences alleged to have been committed required investigation by specialized agencies and not the local police. 8. Be that as it may, the Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 04.05.2022 quashed the Crime No.0129/2021, i.e., the predicate offence (which was transferred to the Crime Branch for investigation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing remarks touching upon the merits of the allegations. 13. The quashing of ECIR registered by the appellant-ED by the Delhi High Court is merely a consequential action and recognition of a fait accompli due to the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in terms whereof the proceedings in the predicate offence stood quashed. 14. One of the contentious issues raised before us revolves around the locus standi of the appellant to institute these appeals. While the learned Additional Solicitor General of India submits that since the ECIR registered by the ED stands annulled as a consequence to the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court, the appellant-Directorate is an affected party and is thus entitled to assail the said judg....