Directorate Of Enforcement v. Priyanka Mittal

$~67 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.REV.P. 110/2018 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr Amit Mahajan, Mr Nitesh Rana and Mr A.R.Aditya, Advocates.

versus PRIYANKA MITTAL ..... Respondent Through :

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R D E R

% 07.02.2018 Crl. M.A. 2364/2018(exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.REV.P. 110/2018 1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 12.01.2018, whereby permission was granted to the respondent to travel to America. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since only investigations were pending and a prosecution complaint had not yet been filed, the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application and pass an order granting permission. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such an application was raised, however, the same is not recorded in the order.

CRL.REV.P.110/2018

1.

Learned counsel, however, concedes that the respondent has already travelled abroad and returned. Learned counsel submits that the said order is likely to be cited as a precedent by the respondent and other co-accused.

2.

Since the respondent has already travelled abroad and returned, the impugned order has already worked itself and the issue raised has become purely academic and as such no further orders are called for in the present petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to raise the objection if the issue arises again. 4.

In view of the above, the Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 5.

It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved and the question of law with regard to jurisdiction is left open.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J FEBRUARY 07, 2018 'Sn'

CRL.REV.P.110/2018