Madras High Court Directs Registry To List Plea Seeking FIR, PMLA Probe Against TVK Chief Vijay Over Alleged Suppression Of Income

Noting that the Registry had not numbered the petition over doubts on its maintainability, the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan said that deciding the issue of maintainability is a judicial function and the registry could not raise such objections.

The court added that if the registry had any doubts regarding the maintainability of a plea, it could number the same with an endorsement “numbered subject to maintainability” and post it before the concerned roster judge along with objections.

The judges made it clear that it was for the court to decide the maintainability of the case and if found maintainable, to consider the case on merits.

“In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the directions and circular already issued, we hereby direct the Registry not to refuse to number any case raising the issue of maintainability. If the cases filed are otherwise in order but the Registry still has a doubt regarding maintainability, the case shall be numbered with an endorsement “numbered subject to maintainability” and shall be listed before the concerned Hon'ble Roster Judge, separately under the caption “for maintainability”, along with the objections raised and compliance reported. It is for the Court to decide on maintainability of the case and if found maintainable, then to consider the case on merits,” the court said.

The petition, filed by M Rajkumar of Chennai has sought a direction to the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (central) to examine the materials and findings recorded in search proceedings, sworn statement recoded during the assessment proceedings and the penalty order passed under the Income Tax Act against Vijay and pass appropriate prosecution proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.

Directions have also been sought to direct appropriate law enforcement agency to register an FIR against Vijay and investigate into the commission of cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code, including but not limited to Sections 420, 467, 470, 471 and 120B of IPC, in relation to the suppression of income, receipt of unaccounted cash remuneration and concealment of financial transactions disclosed in the course of the search and statutory proceedings.

The third relief sought is for the DGIT and the Principal Commissioner to place the materials gathered during the search before the authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for examining the existence of a scheduled predicate offence and “proceeds of crime” and to take appropriate action under the Act.

It may be noted that this is the third case that has been filed in connection with discrepancies in financial assets declared by Vijay. In the first plea, in which an inquiry by IT department was sought, the court has directed the department to file its response and has issued notice to Vijay. The second plea, in which an inquiry by the Election Commission of India was sought, was dismissed by the court holding that it could not issue such directions after the elections were declared and that the petitioner would have to approach the court by way of an Election Petition.