Mukul Agrawal vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

Miscellaneous Application No. 531 of 2023 With Interlocutory Application No. 69324, 69326 & 69341 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020

Mukul Agarwal & Ors … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ... RESPONDENT(S)

----------------

Mukesh Maganlal Doshi … APPLICANT

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicant-

Mukesh Maganlal Doshi, seeking clarification of the order dated

10.02.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020.

The said Miscellaneous Application is accompanied by an application

1 seeking permission to file intervention for clarification and an application

for intervention.

2. It is pertinent to point out at this stage itself that applicant was

not a party in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020, which was decided by

order dated 10.02.2020, the clarification whereof is being sought by the

applicant.

3. The facts as culled out in the application justifying seeking of the

clarification by way of intervention in nutshell are as under:-

(i) A complaint was filed on 5th March, 2019 with the Police authorities

at Mumbai pertaining to unauthorised sale of several units of building in

favour of various persons by business associates of the complainant,

which inter alia included sale of seven units to the present applicant’s

group.

(ii) The complaint also levelled allegations against his business

associates for obtaining fraudulent loans from bank.

(iii) On 19.03.2020, the complainant approached Central Bureau of

2 Investigation (for short, ‘CBI’), raising the same grievance. Even though,

an FIR dated 23.09.2020 was registered by the Police authorities qua

business associates of the complainants and others for availing bank loan

fraudulently, however, the CBI did not register any complaint in respect

of the allegations of unauthorized sale of the units.

(iv) A Commercial Suit No. (L) 370 of 2020 was filed by the

complainant in respect of the unauthorized sale of seven units of the

building in favour of the applicant and his group. There was a

compromise between the parties in the said suit which came to be decree

by the jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 16.03.2021, on the basis

of compromise between the parties. The compromise decree

acknowledged that the applicant’s group was victim of fraud and after

service of the notice of the suit, immovable property/value of the property

in dispute was returned/refunded to the plaintiff/complainant.

(v) Thereafter, the Police authorities in Mumbai have filed a closure

report under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before the

concerned Magistrate stating that no further investigation qua the

applicant and his group was required.

3

4. However, in proceedings under PMLA1 against the business

associates of the complainant, the applicant’s group has been wrongly

roped in and thus a clarification is sought in the judgment and order dated

10.02.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020, wherein it was

held that finding of the civil court makes substratum of the criminal

complaint vanish against any person and the criminal proceedings qua

him are liable to be quashed and it will be a complete abuse of process of

law to allow such persons to be prosecuted.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that, in case, the law

laid down by this Court in judgment dated 10.02.2020 passed in Criminal

Appeal No. 249 of 2020 is not clarified to apply in the case of the present

applicant, the same would result in multiplicity of proceedings and such a

clarification would serve the ends of justice without causing prejudice to

anyone.

6. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel

for the applicant.

1 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

4

7. It is no doubt correct that the judgment and order dated

10.02.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020 has

held that the findings recorded in the civil proceedings make substratum

of a criminal complaint vanish and thus, any pending criminal

proceedings against such persons are liable to be quashed and allowing

prosecution in such a situation would amount to complete abuse of

proceedings of law.

8. It goes without saying that the law laid down by this Court is

binding on all under Article 141 of the Constitution of India but before

applying the law, the court where the proceedings are pending is required

to test the applicability of the law declared by this Court on the basis of

the facts of a particular case.

9. Such a blanket declaration sought by the applicant by way of

clarification of an order by way of intervention in proceedings to which

he is totally alien is not liable to be allowed. It goes without saying that

facts and circumstances of a particular case are required to be tested to

find out whether the law declared by this Court is applicable to the said

facts or not. We have no reason to doubt that the courts will not follow

5 the binding law declared by this Court in case it is found that the same is

applicable to the facts of a particular case.

10. In view of above, the applicant cannot be permitted to seek

clarification of the order dated 10.02.2020 by way of an intervention as

the same is a matter to be considered by the concerned court, where the

proceedings in respect of the applicant is pending.

11. The application of the applicant for permission to file

intervention is rejected and accordingly, the intervention and the

application seeking clarification also stand dismissed.

12. The Miscellaneous Application stand disposed of accordingly.

…………………………....................J. (KRISHNA MURARI)

……………………………………....................J (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 26, 2023

6