TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses premature petition to quash ECIR, grants protection against ED coercive measures.</h1> <h3>Abhishek Banerjee Versus The Directorate of Enforcement (ED)</h3> Abhishek Banerjee Versus The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Quashing of ECIR.2. Quashing of Summons dated 08.06.2023 issued by the Enforcement Directorate.Summary:Issue 1: Quashing of ECIRThe petitioner challenged the proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), specifically ECIR/KLZO-II/19/2022, and sought its quashing. The petitioner argued that the investigation lacked a predicate offence against him, rendering the ECIR invalid. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) contended that ECIR is an internal document and not a statutory requirement for initiating an investigation. The court noted that the investigation was ongoing and the petitioner had appeared before the ED pursuant to the summons. The court held that the stage at which the petitioner approached was premature and thus, the prayer for quashing the ECIR was not maintainable.Issue 2: Quashing of Summons dated 08.06.2023The petitioner also sought to quash the summons issued by the ED on 08.06.2023, arguing that it was a part of a politically motivated harassment campaign. The court examined the materials presented, including the statement of a co-accused linking the petitioner to the investigation. The court directed that no coercive measures should be taken against the petitioner without adhering to Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002, as explained in the Supreme Court judgment in V. Senthil Balaji v. State Represented by Deputy Director & Ors. The court emphasized the need for the ED to follow due process and record reasons for any arrest, ensuring compliance with legal mandates.Conclusion:The court disposed of the petition, stating that the prayer for quashing the ECIR was premature and could not be entertained at this stage. However, it provided protection to the petitioner against coercive actions by the ED, requiring strict adherence to the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 19 of the PMLA.
TaxTMI 