TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r taking cognizance dated 19.06.2023 (Anneuxre-3) whereby cognizance of the alleged offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act has been taken by the PMLA, Court, Ranchi; order dated 12.03.2024 (Annexure-4) whereby discharge application filed vide Misc. Cr. Application No. 197/2024 stood rejected by the PMLA, Court Ranchi and order framing charges dated 8.7.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the Judge, PMLA, Ranchi; and the case is presently pending in the Court of Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi. Prosecution case/Facts 2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by Bariatu P.S. Case for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the complaint of one Mr. Dilip Sharma, Tax Collector posted at Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi. It has been alleged in the FIR that the holding nos.0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5 pertaining to Ward No. 21, Lotus Garden Complex, Block-B of the accused Pradip Bagchi were verified by him and in the process of verification it was found that the accused Pradeep Bagchi was not residing in the said Apartment. It has been further alleged that the documents submitted by the accused/Pradeep Bagchi fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the above said property had been mentioned 0210004194000A1, which had been obtained fraudulently. (g) Pradeep Bagchi had allegedly created forged documents and had dishonestly cheated the government authorities for the above-said property admeasuring 4.55 acres, which are criminal activities relating to scheduled offences under the PMLA. He had obtained holding No.0210004194000A1 in order to frivolously show the ownership of the property measuring 4.55 acres at Plot No.MS 557, Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, and to further transfer the ownership of the property to M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., represented by its director Dilip Kumar Ghosh (present petitioner). The declared government value/guideline Value of the said property was Rs. 20,75,84,200/- whereas the said property had been sold for an amount of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- which was highly undervalued as compared to the declared government rate thus, the said property has been sold to the M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., represented by its director Dilip Kumar Ghosh (present petitioner) by creating forged documents in the connivance of the accused persons including the present petitioner and the said alleg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut the argument having not been concluded on earlier occasion, therefore, the present matter was posed for hearing on 11.02.2026. 11. It is evident from the order dated 11.02.2026, the learned counsel for ED has sought two weeks' time to file additional affidavit by way of supplementary counter affidavit and accordingly, time as sought for, has been granted by this Court, for ready reference, the order dated 11.02.2026 is being quoted as under: "1. Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned counsel for the Opp. Party-E.D. has sought for two weeks' time to file additional affidavit by way of supplementary counter affidavit. 2. Such submission has been made in presence of Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, who has appeared through virtual mode assisted by Mrs. Amrita Sinha, Advocate. 3. Time, as has been sought for, is allowed. 4. Accordingly, list this matter on 18.03.2026. 5. If any affidavit will be filed, the copy thereof will be supplied well in advance to the learned counsel for the petitioner so that response of the aforesaid affidavit, if any, be filed on or before the next date of hearing." 12. Accordingly, in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The petitioner has deliberately by-passed the statutory remedies available under the law. Both the order rejecting the discharge application dated 12.03.2024 and the order framing charges dated 08.07.2024 are revisable orders under the law. The petitioner could have challenged these specific orders by way of criminal revision within the statutory period of 90 days. However, the petitioner chose not to avail these remedies at the appropriate time and only in order to escape the limitation period the present petition has been filed under section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. iv. Further, the instant petition has been filed on 02.05.2025, almost a year after the discharge application was rejected and presently trial of the said ECIR case is in progress and substantial witnesses have already been examined. v. The inherent jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for a statutory revision that has bene barred by limitation and the petitioner is attempting to circumvent the law. vi. The jurisdiction of this Court to quash criminal proceedings is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and not when the trial has already gathered momentum. The petitioner, havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riminal proceeding. The inherent power is to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law or process of court or to secure the ends of justice. 23. It has further been contended that Section 528 starts with non obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, this clause makes it very clear that section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. (Section 438 and 442 of the BNSS Act) could not deter this Hon'ble Court from exercising its inherent power in the circumstances as stated above, therefore, the present petition is maintainable. 24. Learned senior counsel, however, has relied upon the following judgments, i.e., (i) Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited & Ors. Vrs. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2009) 2 SCC 370; (ii) Prabhu Chawla Vrs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2016) 16 SCC 30; (iii) Amit Mittal & Anr. Vrs. Punjab Government, passed in Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2025 [arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.6729 of 2019] 25. Learned senior counsel, however, has submitted that he is ready to convert the instant petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. pari materia to Section 438 of BNSS, if the liberty would be granted by this Court to convert it. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provision as contained under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., pari materia to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which is being quoted hereinbelow:- "528. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.-Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to given effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 33. It requires to refer herein that the Section 528 BNSS/482 C.P.C. merely safeguards all existing inherent powers possessed by a High Court, necessary, among other purposes, to secure the ends of justice. The inherent powers of the High Court, preserved by section 482 Cr.P.C., are to be exercised in making orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code/BNSS, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 34. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the High Court has been conferred with inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the power, Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 39. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding section 528 BNSS) are the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice." 41. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005) 1 SCC 568] the powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India were highlighted and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: "29. Regarding the argument of the accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of the Constitution is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considered necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is a statutory power vested in the High Court to quash such criminal proceedings that would dislodge the charges levelled against the accused and based on the material produced, lead to a firm opinion that the assertions contained in the charges levelled by the prosecution deserve to be overruled. 45. While exercising the powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, whether at the stage of issuing process or at the stage of committal or even at the stage of framing of charges, which are all stages that are prior to commencement of the actual trial, the test to be applied is that the Court must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused would lead to a conclusion that their defence is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts. The material relied on by the accused should also be such that would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss the accusations levelled against them as false. 46. The interpretation of word "inherent power" by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judicial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in Section 397 Cr.P.C/438 BNSS. For ready reference, Section 438 BNSS is being quoted herein which reads as under: "438. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.-(1) the High Court or any sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on his own bond or bail bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.-All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purpose of this sub-section of section 439. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Court in the case of Mohit Vs. State of UP, AIR 2013 SC 2248 (Para 23). Meaning thereby, if convention or alternate forum like revisional jurisdiction has not been exhausted then the invoking the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr. P.C is not suitable, particularly when the learned trial court after appreciating the evidence has already applied its mind and consequent thereto discharge application has been dismissed and charges has already been framed which is the case herein. 55. Further, it is also settled position of law that the remedy of revision to Sessions Judge u/s 399 CrPC does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court u/s 482 CrPC but the High Court should not act as a second revisional court under the garb of exercising inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ganesh Narayan Hedge vs. S. Bargarappa, (1995) 4 SCC 41. 56. The learned counsel for the petitioner has put his reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited & Ors. Vrs. State of Maharashtra & Another (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l number of witnesses have already been examined and therefore, the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings have also been made. As such, at the midst of trial, all the prayers which have been made in the instant petition, has become inter-related. (ii) The second reason is that under the provision of Section 397 Cr.P.C. pari materia to Section 438 of the B.N.S.S., the statutory period of limitation as per the statutory requirement, the revision is to be filed within the period of 90 days. 62. The admitted position herein is that the present petition has been filed after 90 days period, meaning thereby, the present petition has not been filed within the period of limitation and if the petition would have been filed within the period of limitation, there would not have been difficulty in granting leave for its conversion to that of revision on the principle that the litigant has approached to the Court of law within time but before the wrong forum but that is not the case herein, rather, the present petition has been filed after delay of 90 days and as such, there cannot be any order of reversion of the present petition to that of revision. 63. On the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluded. Such an attempt is impermissible and amounts to an abuse of the process of Court. 68. This Court is conscious of the settled position of law that the mere availability of an alternative forum does not, by itself, bar the invocation of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. However, in the present case, the conduct of the Petitioner assumes significance. The Petitioner, having actively participated in the trial and having cross-examined witnesses, has now approached this Court seeking the aforesaid relief. Such conduct is indicative of an attempt to circumvent the conventional forum and the limitation period prescribed for revision. The petition thus appears designed to protract and linger the judicial process rather than to seek bona fide redress. 69. This Court is mindful that the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances and herein, the trial has already gathered momentum and petitioner has actively participated in the trial and if at this stage, the said jurisdiction will be invoked, then, it will amount to giving premium to the petitioner to abuse the process of l....