2023 (11) TMI 263 - HC - Money Laundering

Petition dismissed for quashing money laundering summons under Section 50 PMLA in Railway Job Land Scam case

Delhi HC dismissed petition seeking quashing of ECIR and anticipatory bail in money laundering case related to Railway Job for Land Scam. Petitioner was ... Grant of anticipatory bail - Seeking quashing of ECIR against the petitioner - Money Laundering - schedule offences/predicate offence - person who is not named in the ECIR has locus to seek relief such as quashing of ECIR or not - HELD THAT:- The power conferred upon the authorities by virtue of Section 50 of PMLA empower them to summon ‘any person’ whose attendance may be crucial either to give some evidence or to produce any records during the course of investigation or proceedings under PMLA. The petitioner herein has been summoned vide impugned notice dated 06.10.2023 whereby he has been called upon to submit certain documents and records, which are deemed necessary by the Directorate of Enforcement for the purpose of investigation in the Railway Job for Land Scam case, for which the present ECIR has been registered. A perusal of the chargesheet filed by the CBI in the predicate offence, and the reply filed by Directorate of Enforcement in another writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) 16957/2022 preferred by the petitioner in some other case for seeking permission to travel abroad, both of which have been placed on record by the petitioner, throws light on the position of the petitioner in the alleged Railway Job for Land Scam - the investigation in the present ECIR is still continuing and the petitioner has merely been summoned to appear and submit certain documents. Even as per the own case of petitioner, he has joined investigation in the present ECIR upon being summoned by the Directorate of Enforcement on six occasions in past, between March till August 2023. Thus, no tenable grounds have been shown now as to why the impugned summons deserve to be quashed. Even otherwise, as held in several judicial precedents, this Court cannot throttle the investigative process at the stage of issuance of summons to the petitioner. This Court notes that the petitioner herein in the past has been summoned by the Directorate of Enforcement on about six occasions, as per the own case of petitioner, and has not been arrested till date. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has also not been arrested by the CBI in the RC pertaining to predicate offence. Merely because once again a summon has been issued under Section 50 of PMLA, no case for grant of no-coercive steps can be made out. It is also clear as per the scheme of PMLA that power to issue summons under Section 50 of PMLA is different from the power to arrest under Section 19 of PMLA, and the issuance of summons to join investigation and give some evidence or document to the investigation agency cannot be presumed to culminate into the arrest of person being so summoned. This Court is not inclined to quash the impugned summons or the ECIR against the petitioner or to grant any relief of no-coercive steps as prayed by the petitioner - Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Quashing of proceedings against the petitioner in ECIR No. 31/2022.2. Restraining the respondent from taking any coercive action against the petitioner.3. Quashing of the Enforcement Directorate case against the petitioner.4. Granting any other appropriate relief to the petitioner.Summary:Issue 1: Quashing of proceedings against the petitioner in ECIR No. 31/2022The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings against him in ECIR No. 31/2022, arguing that he had been absolved from the scheduled offences in the RC registered by the CBI and thus, the proceedings under PMLA were not maintainable. The petitioner emphasized that he was not an accused in the predicate offence and had cooperated fully with the investigation. However, the court noted that the investigation in the present ECIR was still ongoing, and the petitioner had merely been summoned to appear and submit certain documents. The court concluded that no tenable grounds were shown to quash the summons and that it could not interfere at the stage of issuance of summons.Issue 2: Restraining the respondent from taking any coercive action against the petitionerThe petitioner argued for a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent from taking any coercive action, citing the similarity of questions asked by both the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement. The court, however, noted that the petitioner had been summoned under Section 50 of PMLA and had joined the investigation on multiple occasions without being arrested. The court emphasized that the power to issue summons under Section 50 of PMLA is different from the power to arrest under Section 19 of PMLA and declined to grant relief for no-coercive steps.Issue 3: Quashing of the Enforcement Directorate case against the petitionerThe petitioner sought the quashing of the ECIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, arguing that he was not an accused in the predicate offence and had been named as a witness in the chargesheet filed by the CBI. The court highlighted that the petitioner had not placed on record the copy of the ECIR and was not aware if he was named in it. The court observed that it was not mandatory for the Directorate of Enforcement to furnish a copy of the ECIR to the person under investigation and found the prayer for quashing the ECIR to be premature and without merit.Issue 4: Granting any other appropriate relief to the petitionerThe court considered the petitioner's request for any other appropriate relief but found no grounds to grant such relief. The court reiterated that the petitioner had joined the investigation multiple times and had not been arrested, and thus, no case for directing the respondent to not take any coercive steps was made out.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, stating that it was not inclined to quash the impugned summons or the ECIR against the petitioner or to grant any relief of no-coercive steps. The observations made were for the sole purpose of deciding the present petition and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.