Plea to Quash Application Under Economic Offenders Act Rejected Due to Lack of ‘Clean Hands’ for CrPC Discretionary Relief

Case Details: Sanjay Bhandari vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2024] 168 taxmann.com 243 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
• Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv., Avneesh A., Abhishek Nassing, Shantanu Parokar, Shaurya Chourasiya & Shreedhar Kale, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Anupam Sharma, Vivek Gurani, Kartik Sabharwal, Vivek Gaurav, Ms Abhipriya Rai & Sanwir Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner was accused of tax evasion and had fled to UK. Respondent filed miscellaneous application under section 4 before Special Judge seeking declaration of petitioner as fugitive economic offender.

The Special Judge summoned petitioner. Petitioner filed petition under section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of miscellaneous application filed under section 4 of Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, summoning order and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

Respondent submitted that petitioner had not disclosed his residential address of UK in affidavit filed with petition, suggesting that petitioner had not approached Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that since petitioner was absconding and sought to invoke Court’s discretionary power without disclosing his current whereabouts, instant petition was to be outrightly rejected.

Further, application for declaration of fugitive economic offender and procedure therefor – Whether a person who invokes jurisdiction of Court must come with clean hands.

The High Court held that the exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC is intended to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice; these are extraordinary reliefs, which can only be granted to individuals who approach Court with clean hands.

List of Cases Referred to

• Carona Ltd. v. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons (2007) 8 SCC 559 (para 18),
• Pr. CIT v. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 300/395 ITR 677 (Delhi) (para 21),
• Best Cybercity (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2019] 107 taxmann.com 215/265 Taxman 100/414 ITR 385 (Delhi) (para 21),
• Godrej Industries Ltd. v. B.S. Singh, Dy. CIT and Others 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 8420 (para 21),
• Godrej Industries Ltd. v. B.S. Singh, Dy. CIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 354/235 Taxman 25/377 ITR 1 (Bombay) (para 21)
• Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others (1978) 1 SCC 405 (para 21).