General restraint on coercive steps does not automatically stay attachment, investigation, or prosecution in money-laundering proceedings.

A general interim restraint on coercive steps does not, by itself, stay a provisional attachment of property when the attachment order was not specifically challenged. The attachment remains operative unless expressly stayed. The same restraint also does not bar money-laundering investigation or prosecution where no direct challenge to those proceedings is laid, especially when the relied-upon Supreme Court clarification states that a direction against coercive steps is not a stay on investigation or trial. The enforcement action and prosecution may therefore continue in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the interim restraint against taking coercive steps covered the provisional attachment of property. (ii) Whether the interim restraint extended to criminal investigation and prosecution under the money-laundering proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the interim restraint against taking coercive steps covered the provisional attachment of property.

Analysis: The operative direction restrained coercive steps, but the attachment order was not specifically challenged in the writ petition. A stay on attachment could not be implied from a general restraint order, particularly when the attachment was a distinct action and had not been brought under challenge.

Conclusion: The interim restraint did not cover the provisional attachment, and there was no stay against the attachment of the petitioner's properties.

Issue (ii): Whether the interim restraint extended to criminal investigation and prosecution under the money-laundering proceedings.

Analysis: The writ petition was not one invoking inherent criminal jurisdiction for quashing proceedings, and no specific challenge was laid to the criminal prosecution. The earlier Supreme Court order relied upon had itself been clarified so that a direction against coercive steps would not amount to a stay on investigation or trial, which could proceed in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The interim restraint did not bar investigation or prosecution, and the department was free to continue them in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court confined the scope of the interim protection, removed any implication of a stay on attachment, and clarified that the enforcement proceedings and prosecution could continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A general direction restraining coercive action does not, without a specific challenge or express order, stay a provisional attachment or prevent lawful investigation and prosecution.

---