2015 (7) TMI 1387 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking direction to respondent No.2 to produce before the Court and handover to the petitioner all the records and proceedings of the complaints - mala fide alleged by the petitioner against respondent No.2 - HELD THAT - ECIR is an internal document of Enforcement Directorate and unlike FIR, it is not a public document. Hence the copy of the same cannot be furnished to the petitioner as of right. The investigation is at the preliminary stage and granting the reliefs as prayed for, would hamper the investigation. We are, therefore, not inclined to issue directions as sought or to furnish the details of the FIR. It is also pertinent to note that the schedule to the summons requires the petitioner to give 1) details of recent foreign visits; 2) copies of passport since 2000; 3) bank account details- domestic and overseas and 4)Pan number. The summons/schedule, therefore, gives a fair idea of the nature of interrogation as well as the documents required by the agency for the purpose of investigation. Mala fide alleged by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 - HELD THAT - There are no substance inasmuch as, the petitioner's husband was arrested in pursuance of the warrant issued by the Court and the nature of the proceedings in which he was arrested were different from the proceedings in the present case. Application disposed off.

Issues:
1. Request for production of records and proceedings from respondent No.2.
2. Interpretation of Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Allegation of mala fide against respondent No.2.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Request for production of records and proceedings from respondent No.2
The petitioner filed a petition seeking direction for respondent No.2 to produce and hand over all records and proceedings related to complaints and relevant documents from the Directorate of Enforcement. The petitioner had received summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, and had previously filed a writ petition for quashing the summons. The petitioner requested details of complaints and relevant documents, which were not provided, leading to the current petition.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
The petitioner's counsel argued that proceedings under Section 50 are deemed judicial proceedings under the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contended that she is entitled to know the nature of the proceedings against her or in relation to which she is being summoned. The petitioner sought a copy of the FIR or its number as the ECIR is based on the FIR. However, the court found that ECIR is an internal document and not a public one, hence cannot be provided to the petitioner. The court also noted that the investigation is at a preliminary stage, and disclosing information would hamper it.

Issue 3: Allegation of mala fide against respondent No.2
The petitioner alleged mala fide on the part of respondent No.2, citing the arrest of her husband by the same investigating officer. The respondent denied any mala fide intent, stating that the husband's arrest was pursuant to a court-issued warrant in a different case. The court found no substance in the mala fide allegation, as the nature of the proceedings leading to the husband's arrest differed from the current case.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner had previously challenged the summons through a writ petition, which was disposed of by consent. The court found that the petitioner's request for documents related to ECIR could not be granted, as it is an internal document. The court also highlighted that the summons provided a clear indication of the nature of interrogation and documents required for the investigation. The court did not find merit in the allegations of mala fide against respondent No.2, as the circumstances of the husband's arrest were distinct from the current proceedings.

← Previous Next →