Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, held that extraordinary reliefs under Section 482 CrPC can only be granted to individuals who approach the court with clean hands. The court made these observations in a petition challenging the summoning order passed by the trial court. The court noted that the accused/petitioner had not disclosed his address in the United Kingdom. 

Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, representing the petitioner, argued that the required criteria for declaring him a Fugitive Economic Offender were not met and contended that the Act applies only when a Non-Bailable Warrant is issued, and the value of the involved offense is at least ₹100 crores. 

Senior Advocate Krishnan emphasized that without a conclusive assessment of tax liability, there was no basis for asserting that proceeds exceeded ₹100 crores. Additionally, it was argued that evidence proving ownership of alleged assets was absent, and the agency's actions displayed arbitrariness and lacked due consideration, as the assets mentioned predated the Black Money Act.

Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, representing ED, highlighted the petitioner’s failure to disclose his UK residential address, arguing he did not approach the court transparently. They noted prior warrants and a Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner, who had fled to the UK despite investigations. Special Counsel Hossain maintained the petitioner was avoiding legal actions and was declared a "proclaimed person," with a Red Notice issued by Interpol and an FIR registered.

The court noted that the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 was enacted to identify and prevent economic offenders from evading legal proceedings by staying outside India's jurisdiction, ensuring the rule of law was upheld. The statement of objects and reasons highlighted that many offenders had fled India to avoid or delay criminal proceedings, leading to serious issues such as obstructed investigations, wasted judicial time, and weakened legal enforcement.

The court observed that the Act included Section 4, which required "reasons to believe," recorded in writing by an officer based on available evidence, before filing an application to declare an individual a fugitive economic offender. The government published rules in 2018 specifying the form and manner of such applications. The complainant provided details about the accused's properties connected to the crime, including assets owned indirectly or through proxies.

The court noted that Sections 4 and 10 stipulate that, upon filing a complaint per the 2018 Rules, the Special Court must issue a notice to the alleged offender. The petitioner’s arguments, including reliance on an Income Tax authority's letter, were rejected as comprehensive evidence was submitted, fulfilling the "reason to believe" requirement.

The court further remarked that the petitioner's non-disclosure of his UK address and attempt to invoke the Court's jurisdiction without transparency led to the conclusion that he had not approached the Court with clean hands. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking extraordinary relief, was deemed inappropriate. 

For Petitioners: Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan with Advocates Avneesh A, Abhishek Nassing, Shantanu Parokar, Shaurya Chourasiya and Shreedhar Kale
For Respondents: Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain with Advocates Anupam Sharma, Vivek Gurani, Kartik Sabharwal, Vivek Gaurav, Abhipriya Rai and Sanwir Singh
Case Title: Sanjay Bhandari v Directorate Of Enforcement