Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
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:-
th
(i) A complaint was filed on 5 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
1
4. However, in proceedings under PMLA 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