Ongoing criminal investigation bars writ interference with enforcement summons, search actions, and seizure-related relief.

Writ challenges to enforcement summons, notices, search and seizure measures, and a request for return of seized documents were held not maintainable where the underlying Aircel-Maxis and FIPB-related investigation was still in progress and under Supreme Court monitoring. The HC held that it should not entertain proceedings that would directly or indirectly impede an ongoing criminal investigation, especially after the competent court had permitted further investigation and supplementary complaints. Objections that no predicate offence had been established, that the petitioners were not shown as accused, and that the summons and notices were unreasoned were treated as premature. The request for return of seized documents also failed as it was consequential to the search challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the Directorate of Enforcement's summons, notices, search and seizure actions, and the request for return of seized documents were maintainable before the High Court, in view of the ongoing 2G Spectrum Aircel-Maxis investigation monitored by the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The writ petitions all stemmed from investigative steps taken by the Directorate of Enforcement and the connected agencies in relation to the Aircel-Maxis and FIPB approval matters. The Court accepted that the investigation was still in progress, that the Supreme Court had been monitoring the 2G Spectrum related proceedings, and that the Special Court had permitted further investigation and the filing of supplementary complaints. In that setting, the Court held that it could not entertain challenges which would directly or indirectly impede the ongoing investigation. The objections that no predicate offence had yet been established, that the petitioners were not shown as accused, or that the notices and summonses were unreasoned, were held to be premature at this stage. The claim for return of seized documents also failed as it was consequential to the challenge to the search itself.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were held to be not maintainable before the High Court and were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: When an investigation is part of a Supreme Court-monitored criminal proceeding and the competent court has permitted further investigation, the High Court should not entertain writ proceedings that would impede or interfere with that investigation.

---