The Supreme Court while dealing with a miscellaneous application filed by an applicant has observed that clarification of an order through intervention in the proceedings to which the person is totally alien is not liable to be allowed.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held, “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 the binding law declared by this Court in case it is found that the same is applicable to the facts of a particular case.”

The Bench said that the law laid down by it is binding on all under Article 141 of the Constitution but before applying the law, the court where the proceedings are pending is required to test the applicability of the law declared by it on the basis of the facts of a particular case.

Advocates Sarthak Sachdev and Aditya Jain represented the appellants while Advocates Ruchira Goel and Yatish Mohan represented the respondents.

Facts -

A miscellaneous application was filed by the applicant seeking clarification of the order passed by the Apex Court and the same was accompanied by an application seeking permission to file intervention for clarification and an application for intervention. A complaint was filed with the police authorities at Mumbai pertaining to unauthorised sale of several units of the building in favour of various persons by business associates of the complainant, which included the sale of seven units to the applicant’s group.

The said complaint was also against the business associates for obtaining fraudulent loans from the bank but the CBI did not register any complaint in this regard even though an FIR was registered by the police. A commercial suit came to be filed and a compromise between the parties occurred and thereafter, the police filed a closure report before the concerned Magistrate stating no further investigation was required.

The Supreme Court in the above context noted, “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.”

The Court said that it is not impressed by the submission made by the counsel for the applicant.

“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”, asserted the Court.

The Court concluded that the applicant can thus be not permitted to seek clarification of the order as the same is a matter to be considered by the concerned court where the proceedings are pending.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the application.

Cause Title- Mukul Agarwal & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment