Bombay High Court said- ED should not take law into its own hands, should not harass the public, fine of Rs 1 lakh.

Independent morning.

Bombay

In an important order, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on the Enforcement Directorate (ED), saying that now the time has come that central agencies like ED should work within the ambit of law and take the law into their own hands and protect the citizens. Should stop harassing.

Single judge Justice Milind Jadhav said a 'strong message' should be sent to law enforcement agencies to ensure that citizens are not harassed. The court said the ED did not use its mind while initiating the investigation. Central agencies should work within the framework of law.

The High Court quashed the process (summons/notice) issued to Mumbai-based real estate developer, Rakesh Jain, by a special court in August 2014 on the basis of the complaint. Justice Jadhav said, “It is time that central agencies like ED stop taking the law into their own hands and harassing citizens.”

Justice Jadhav said that I am bound to impose the fine because a strong message needs to be sent to law enforcement agencies like ED that they should work within the ambit of the law. They cannot take the law into their own hands and harass citizens without thinking. The judge said that by now it has been decided that the crime of money laundering was committed by a person deliberately with the aim of increasing his profits. , in which the interests of the nation and society were ignored.

An FIR was lodged against developer Rakesh Jain at Vile Parle police station by a property buyer alleging fraud. ED had started a money laundering investigation against Rakesh Jain on the basis of a complaint made to the police. Justice Jadhav said in his judgment that no case is made out against Jain and hence the allegation of money laundering is also not made out. It is important to mention here that a police complaint was lodged against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren for similar land grabbing.

ED started investigation against Hemant on the same basis and even arrested him. The matter reached Ranchi High Court. The High Court destroyed the ED. Ranchi High Court had also said that how can money laundering investigation be conducted against Hemant Soren and how can he be arrested on the basis of a police complaint.

In this case too, the High Court said that the action taken by the complainant as well as the ED against the developer Rakesh Jain is clearly malicious and demands imposition of a fine. Justice Jadhav said, “I am asking for the imposition of fine to advise the ED. Because there is a need to send a strong message to law enforcement agencies like ED that they should work within the ambit of the law and they cannot take the law into their own hands. Can't do it.”

The court directed the ED to pay Rs 1 lakh to the High Court Library within four weeks. The bench also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on the original complainant (buyer) in the case. This cost will be given to the Kirtikar Law Library located in the city. The High Court has explained what exactly the crime of money laundering is. The court said that the offense of money laundering is committed by a person with a deliberate design and with a view to increase his own profit, disregarding the interest of the nation and society. The judgment said, “It has been observed that money laundering conspiracies are hatched in secrecy and carried out quietly. The case before me is a classic case of oppression under the garb of enforcement of PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) “

However, on the request of ED lawyer Shriram Shirsat, the High Court stayed its decision for a week so that the ED could file an appeal against the decision in the Supreme Court. ED has registered most of the cases in this manner. There are many cases in which FIR was registered many years ago and ED started investigation later. It is obvious that ED would not have started investigation on him without any motive after years. The opposition alleges that the ED is working under pressure from the central government and BJP. She takes action according to the instructions she receives from above. But now she has started behaving like this with the general public also.

The case pertained to an alleged 'breach of agreement' between a buyer and a developer, wherein the buyer had entered into an agreement with the firm for the renovation of two floors of a building in suburban Malad, which was basically a cross holding of the developer. The buyer had agreed to pay more than Rs 4 crore for this renovation. The buyer was the president of the society of the newly constructed building. He had purchased two floors (15 rooms each) separately to start a residential hotel or guest house facility with separate entry and parking facilities.

According to the petition, a second agreement was entered into between the purchaser and the developer regarding the sale of two floors of the building for an amount of more than Rs 6 crore. It was agreed between both the parties that the developer would be given possession of the premises on July 30, 2007. Will have to give. However, the developer failed to hand over the premises with the Occupancy Certificate (OC), which the developer said was due to major modifications in the renovations carried out on the instructions of the purchaser and modifications done by other flat owners in the entire building. Was.

However, aggrieved by the 'unavoidable' delay, the buyer lodged a complaint twice with the Malad police station, which refused to register an FIR on the grounds that the dispute was purely civil in nature. The buyer then lodged a private complaint before the magistrate in Andheri and obtained an order directing the Vile Parle police station to investigate. The Vile Parle police station lodged an FIR in March 2009 and subsequently an FIR in August 2010 on charges of fraud etc. Charge sheet filed against the developer under.

In December, 2012, the Vile Parle police station sent its charge sheet to the ED, which then filed a criminal case against the developer. The ED accepted the complainant buyer's plea that the developer defrauded him, adding that he also bought two flats and a garage in a separate project in Andheri, which the developer said were 'proceeds of crime' (money paid by the complainant to the developer). Bought from.

Accepting this plea, the ED filed its report before the Special PMLA Court, which also accepted the same and subsequently allowed the attachment of the said properties allegedly purchased by the developer from the proceeds of crime. Hence the developer This order of the Special Court was challenged before the Single Judge, who after considering the facts, held that the action taken by the ED and the complainant buyer was completely 'mala fide'.

The judge said that there were no elements of fraud in the facts of this case. There is nothing to prevent the developer from entering into a sale agreement and simultaneously allowing execution of the agreement for providing additional facilities/renovations in the same premises through another entity. This is how development happens in the city of Mumbai. Justice Jadhav said this practice of developers entering into simultaneous agreements with buyers through cross holding is “normal business practice and there is no flaw in it.”