IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33608 of 2014 Between:
G. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 12-17-18, Prakashnagar, Narasaraopet, Guntur District.
.. Petitioner AND The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi & 5 others ..
Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33608 of 2014 ORDER:
This writ petition is instituted alleging that even though a complaint was lodged on 22.04.2013 before the Enforcement Directorate for initiation of proceedings under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and under Money- Laundering Act, 2002, on allegation of violation of diversion of funds against respondents 3 to 6, no action was taken.
2. When this matter was taken up for consideration, on 18.11.2014, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel representing the second respondent submitted that the Enforcement Directorate does not take up any investigation or consider any complaint for taking up investigation unless the crime is registered in accordance with provisions contained in Section 3 of Act 2002 and it appears that no complaint is registered. Secondly, it was further contended that the Regional Office of the Enforcement Directorate is located in Hyderabad, which has jurisdiction over State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and this Regional Office alone looks into the grievance, brought to their notice and no such complaint was lodged with them, but directly a complaint was submitted to the Enforcement Directorate Office. The Enforcement Directorate receives huge number of complaints and, therefore, it would be difficult to sort out and communicate with each of the complainants and on prima facie verification, if the complaint is not preceded by a formal registration of crime, they do not respond.
3. Having regard to the said submissions, the matter was adjourned at request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to advise the petitioner accordingly.
4. Today when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that crime was registered bearing No.117 of 2014 on 07.10.2014 and the petitioner would take appropriate further action as mandated by the Act, 2002, and he be given liberty to pursue his grievance.
5. Sri P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 3 to 6 submits that serious allegations are made in the complaint and, therefore, he be heard in the writ petition before passing any further orders.
6. Since the writ petition is not decided on merits and disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies on any grievance of the petitioner against respondents 3 to 6, the matter need not be kept pending and it is disposed of.
7. Granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies as a consequence to registration of Crime No.117 of 2014, dated 07.10.2014, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 6th December, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33608 of 2014 Date: 6th December, 2014 KL