PMLA summons and arrest powers are distinct; anticipatory bail remains available, so ECIR-based writ relief was premature.

A writ petition seeking quashing of an ECIR and protection against coercive action was treated as premature where the petitioner was not named as an accused in the predicate FIR, the ECIR, or the prosecution complaint, and the ECIR was not on record. A summons issued under PMLA Section 50 was held to confer inquiry powers only and not to authorise arrest, which remains governed separately by Section 19. The availability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, even before a formal accusation, was recognised as an alternate remedy subject to PMLA conditions, so the challenge based only on apprehended arrest did not justify writ relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of an ECIR and restraint against coercive action was maintainable and ripe for adjudication when the petitioner was not named as an accused in the predicate FIR or the ECIR, and whether the availability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred such writ relief.

Analysis: The petition was directed against summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and sought quashing of the ECIR, though the ECIR was not on record and the petitioner was not named as an accused in the predicate FIR, the ECIR, or the prosecution complaint. Section 50 confers summons and inquiry powers, while the power of arrest lies separately under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; a summons under Section 50 does not itself authorise arrest. The court further held that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is available to a person apprehending arrest even before a formal accusation or FIR, subject to the statutory conditions applicable in PMLA matters, and therefore the petitioner had an alternate remedy. Since the ECIR was unavailable and the petition rested on an apprehension of possible arrest rather than a substantiated legal infirmity in the ECIR itself, the challenge was held to be premature.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained as premature, and the request for interim protection did not arise.

Ratio Decidendi: A person summoned under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot seek quashing of an ECIR or injunctive protection merely on an apprehension of arrest, because summons power and arrest power are distinct and the remedy of anticipatory bail remains available before formal accusation.

---