In its order dismissing the revision application of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a closure report filed by the MRA Marg police in a cheating case of travel firm Akbar Travels against Jet Airways and its directors Naresh Goyal and Anita Goyal, a sessions court has said that the agency has no ‘locus standi’ in the matter.
The ED has no locus standi to intervene in the issue of closure report between the travel firm which is the informant in the case and the Jet Airways, Additional Sessions Judge MV Kurtadikar has said.
The court also said that, as observed in another case, only the first informant (Akbar Travels) has the right to be heard in a closure report.
The ED had sought a revision of a Ballard Pier magistrate court’s order which had rejected the ED’s intervention against the filing of the closure report by the police.
The sessions court in its order held that the magistrate court had rightly appreciated the material before it and had come to a logical conclusion in rejecting the intervention application of the agency.
The court said it is unable to understand how the ED is an aggrieved party especially when a separate complaint has been registered by it and the matter is closure report in complaint of Akbar Travels and Jet Airways.
The court further said that the travel firm has filed a protest petition against the closure report before the magistrate court and the court has given it the opportunity of being heard and was yet to decide on the closure report - by accepting, rejecting it or directing further investigation.
Akbar Travels through its executive had in February this year filed a complaint of cheating and criminal conspiracy against Jet Airways and the Goyals. The complaint said that despite being aware of their airline’s financial situation, the Goyals induced it to make bookings on behalf of the airline which resulted in losses of Rs. 46 crores to it, which is still due from the airline.
The ED had registered a complaint based on this FIR. However, the police had on 9 March filed a closure report in the case concluding that the airline did not intend to cheat but incurred losses and hence could not pay its creditors. The travel company filed a protest petition against the closure report before the magistrate court. The ED too sought to oppose it claiming that the closure report was filed hastily and crucial evidence was ignored while doing so. The ED's intervention had been rejected, against which it had filed this revision plea.
