AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Sodhi, J.
Crl. M. No. 2105/2001
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
Crl. M. (M) No. 1804 & Crl. M. No. 2104/2001
This petition is filed with a prayer to quash criminal complaint No. 8/1/01 entitled ''Enforcement Directorate v. Neon Fab'' pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the adjudication order dated 1.11.1999 was taken up in appeal before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and the Appellate Board by its order dated 19.5.2002 stayed the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority. However, the Enforcement Directorate, in spite of the stay order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, chose to file a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for violation of provisions of Section 57 of the Act for not depositing the penalty adjudicated upon by the Deputy Director in his order dated 1.11.1999, which order was stayed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board. I find that this complaint is an abuse of the process of the Court. Once the order of the Adjudicating Authority was stayed by the Appellate Board, the Enforcement Directorate had absolutely no right to file a complaint for violation of the order, which has been stayed. The complaint, Therefore, is a total abuse of the process of law. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the complaint No. 8/1/01 entitled ''Enforcement Directorate v. Neon Fab'' is quashed with costs against the Enforcement Directorate quantified at Rs. 1,000.
The petition stands disposed of.