Anil Deshmukh plea to quash ED summons should be heard by Division Bench: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that the plea by former Home Minister of Maharashtra Anil Deshmukh assailing summons of Enforcement Directorate (ED) has to be heard by the Division Bench of the Court..Justice Sandeep K Shinde pronounced the verdict today after reserving the same on September 9, 2021. .The verdict came after an objection was raised by the registry of the Court seeking clarification as to how a petition for quashing of summons was maintainable before a single-judge.“Objection raised by Registry is correct. Registry to place the matter for hearing before the Division Bench," Justice Shinde held..Deshmukh has challenged the summons issued by the ED in the money laundering case which was initiated by ED after the after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a first information report (FIR) following a Court-directed enquiry into allegations of corruption against Deshmukh..ED had initiated the probe claiming that the former minister had misused his position by directing dismissed Mumbai cop Sachin Waze to collect money to the tune of ₹4.7 crore from various restaurants and bars in Mumbai..In order to conduct further investigation into these charges, ED issued five summons to Deshmukh asking him to appear before its officials for questioning..Reportedly, Deshmukh skipped all five summons with a response that he was seeking appropriate legal remedy in courts.These summons have been challenged in the present case..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the agency contended that while this is not an objection raised by the ED "in case of confusion it is always better to err on safer side."He also pointed out that no prejudice will be caused to Deshmukh if the matter is placed for hearing before a Division Bench..Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, placed reliance on the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, specifically Rule 17 in Chapter 17, to contend that the reliefs in the petition require the High Court to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction and as per the Rules it ought to lie before Division Bench..Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri and Advocate Aniket Nikam appearing for Deshmukh countered Singh's submission, stating that the rule which Singh relied upon pertained to petitions filed along with Articles 226 and 227.Nikam pointed out Rule 2 of Chapter 1 which provide that all criminal applications are maintainable before the single-judge.He also pointed out that the summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) have to be challenged before single-judge only.