2023 (2) TMI 1338 - HC - Money Laundering

Maintainability of the petition based on the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) not being a statutory document - HELD THAT - The fact remains that acceptance of C Summary by the Magistrate is not a fact in dispute, as the said fact can be borne out of the record. As far as registration of 17 other offences against the Petitioners are concerned, it can be borne out of the record based on various orders passed by the Division Bench order in the nature of no coercive action was passed in favour of the Petitioners against State-investigating agency. Having regard to the fact that the Division Bench has already quashed the FIR against the petitioners, the case for grant of ad-interim relief is made out. The ad-interim relief qualified thereby permitting the Respondent to continue with the investigation - Matter to come up for consideration on 10th March, 2023.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to maintainability of the petition based on the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) not being a statutory document, Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Justification of actions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the judgment of the Apex Court, Relief sought in the form of no coercive action, Investigation based on multiple FIRs, Acceptance of 'C Summary' by the Magistrate, Quashing of FIRs by the Division Bench, Ad-interim relief granted by the Court.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay dealt with a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the maintainability of the petition based on the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) not being a statutory document. The Respondent, Directorate of Enforcement, objected to the maintainability citing a judgment of the Apex Court. The Court, however, held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked even if the petitioners are not entitled to a copy of the ECIR. The Court found the petition maintainable, emphasizing the sensitivity to the position of law and the propriety under Article 226.

The challenge to the ECIR was based on various legal submissions, including press releases, summonses, and previous judicial orders. The Respondent argued that the investigation was not solely based on the incident leading to the closure summary but also on other FIRs. The Court considered these submissions for the grant of ad-interim relief and acknowledged the acceptance of the 'C Summary' by the Magistrate and the orders passed by the Division Bench regarding no coercive action against the petitioners.

The Court noted the quashing of FIRs by the Division Bench in previous matters and emphasized the need to respect those orders. Despite the matter being sub judice before the Apex Court, the Division Bench's orders of no coercive action and quashing of FIRs were deemed relevant for the grant of ad-interim relief. Consequently, the Court qualified the relief by allowing the investigation to continue but imposing conditions on any intention to take the petitioners into custody.

In conclusion, the Court granted ad-interim relief, allowing the Directorate of Enforcement to proceed with the investigation while directing the petitioners to cooperate and appear as directed. The Court also permitted civil proceedings against the accused persons and mandated a written intimation 72 hours in advance if custody was intended. The matter was scheduled for further consideration on a specified date, with deadlines set for completing pleadings and filing rejoinders.