Court allows parallel investigations by EOW and PMLA, dismissing writ petition.

The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) can conduct its investigation parallel to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) investigation. The court emphasized that the investigations under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the PMLA are distinct, allowing different agencies to investigate related offences. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, stating that the EOW's actions were legitimate and not in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) can continue its investigation parallel to the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
2. Whether the parallel investigation by EOW infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
3. Whether Section 45(1A) of the PMLA excludes other agencies from investigating offences mentioned in the schedule of the PMLA.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Parallel Investigation by EOW:
The petitioner argued that the EOW should be prohibited from continuing its investigation in FIR No. 123/2019, PS: EOW, Delhi, due to the ongoing proceedings under the PMLA. The petitioner contended that the EOW’s investigation infringes on their fundamental rights, as it constitutes a parallel proceeding to the one being conducted by the respondent No.2 under the PMLA.

2. Fundamental Rights under Article 20(2):
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the EOW’s investigation amounts to double jeopardy, infringing upon the petitioner’s rights under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. This article protects individuals from being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The petitioner relied on Section 45(1A) of the PMLA, asserting that it excludes the EOW from conducting its investigation when the respondent No.2 is already investigating under the PMLA.

3. Section 45(1A) of the PMLA:
The court examined the provisions of the PMLA, specifically Section 45(1A), which states that no police officer shall investigate an offence under the PMLA unless specifically authorized by the Central Government. The court clarified that this provision does not preclude other investigating agencies from conducting investigations into offences mentioned in the schedule of the PMLA. The court emphasized that the offences under the IPC and the PMLA are distinct, and investigations for these offences can be carried out by different agencies.

Judgment:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the purpose of the PMLA is to prevent money laundering and confiscate property derived from money laundering activities. The court clarified that the EOW’s investigation into the scheduled offences under the IPC is separate and distinct from the investigation under the PMLA. Therefore, the EOW is not precluded from conducting its investigation.

The court further held that the petitioner’s argument of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) is unfounded, as the investigations under the IPC and the PMLA are for different offences. The court concluded that the petitioner’s attempt to stall the investigation by the EOW is untenable and frivolous. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

---