2024 (4) TMI 865 - HC - Money Laundering

Maintainability of the instant petition - Money Laundering - scheduled offences - predicate offence - scope and spirit of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. - whether the ECIR can be quashed in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court? - HELD THAT - On a minute perusal of the observations of Hon ble the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary s case 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT , it can be safely culled that an ECIR cannot be kept at the same pedestal as an FIR. It is crucial to note that an ECIR is not registered under the Cr.P.C., unlike a First Information Report (FIR), which is mandatorily registered under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., and subsequently forwarded to the Illaqa Magistrate as per the provisions of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C.. Additionally, there exists no legal obligation to provide a copy of the ECIR to an accused, and the absence of such provision does not in any manner impinge upon any constitutional or statutory rights of a person. Thus, an ECIR is an administrative document prepared by the officers of the ED. It precedes the commencement of the prosecution against individuals involved in the offence of money laundering, which in turn is governed by special statute i.e. PMLA. This Court unhesitatingly concurs with the contentions made by the learned counsel for the respondent-ED that the ECIR is an internal administrative document of the ED. Consequently, in the considered opinion of this Court, since the ECIR precedes the stage of criminal prosecution and proceedings, it thus falls outside the purview of the inherent jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the ECIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained. The present petition fails on grounds of maintainability itself, and is dismissed as such.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the quashing of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) as illegal and abuse of process of law, discharge of the petitioner of scheduled offences, maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., survival of scheduled offence under Section 120-B IPC, and the nature, scope, and import of an ECIR.

Quashing of ECIR:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the ECIR, arguing that it was illegal and an abuse of process of law since the petitioner had already been discharged of the predicate offences under Sections 121 and 121-A IPC by the trial court. The petitioner contended that the continuance of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) would be against settled law if the accused is discharged or acquitted of the scheduled offence. The petitioner emphasized that the offence under Section 120-B IPC cannot sustain solely based on the discharge of the scheduled offence.

Maintainability of the Petition:
The respondent, Directorate of Enforcement (ED), raised preliminary objections on the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., contending that the ECIR is an internal administrative document and not equivalent to an FIR. The ED argued that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The ED highlighted that since one of the scheduled offences under Section 120-B IPC still subsisted, there was no impediment in proceeding against the petitioner.

Nature of ECIR:
The Court examined the nature, scope, and import of an ECIR, emphasizing that it is an internal administrative document of the ED and not registered under the Cr.P.C. like an FIR. The Court cited observations from the Supreme Court, stating that an ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR and that there is no legal obligation to provide a copy of the ECIR to an accused. The Court agreed with the ED that the ECIR falls outside the purview of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and dismissed the petition on grounds of maintainability.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the ECIR, ruling that the ECIR is an internal administrative document and does not fall under the purview of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court clarified that its decision on maintainability should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.