ED can summon persons for investigation under Section 50 PMLA regardless of location, petitioner to be examined in Kolkata

Delhi HC dismissed petition challenging PMLA summons and ECIR quashing. Court held ED has power under Section 50 PMLA to summon persons for investigation regardless of location. Petitioner's complaint about repeated Delhi summons despite residing in Kolkata was addressed by directing ED to examine him at Kolkata office with 24-hour notice. Court found ECIR quashing premature as petitioner's status (accused/witness) remains unclear, with ED confirming no prosecution complaint filed yet. Petition disposed of with direction for examination at Kolkata.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of ECIR and Summons under Section 50 of PMLA.
2. Jurisdiction of the Directorate of Enforcement.
3. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.
4. Interim Order of No Coercive Steps.

Summary:

I. Quashing of ECIR and Summons under Section 50 of PMLA:
The petitioner sought quashing of the ECIR and the summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA. The court noted that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has the power to summon any person for evidence or documents during an investigation. The petitioner was summoned multiple times but appeared only once. The court found no grounds to quash the summons, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which upheld the ED's power to summon individuals for investigation under PMLA. The court also referenced the decision in Kirit Shrimankar v. Union of India, which stated that apprehensions of arrest based on flimsy grounds are premature for seeking constitutional remedies.

II. Jurisdiction of the Directorate of Enforcement:
The petitioner argued that the investigation should be conducted in Kolkata, where the alleged offenses occurred, rather than New Delhi. The court noted that the ED has jurisdiction to summon individuals irrespective of the location of the alleged offense. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. M.M. Exports, which cautioned against High Courts interfering at the stage of summons issuance.

III. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution:
The petitioner argued that being compelled to appear and provide evidence violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. The court noted that the petitioner was not yet an accused and was only summoned for information or evidence. The court cited Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, which clarified that Article 20(3) applies only when a person is formally accused and compelled to be a witness against themselves.

IV. Interim Order of No Coercive Steps:
The petitioner sought an interim order to prevent coercive steps by the ED. The court noted that the petitioner had not been arrested despite multiple summonses and had not appeared on most occasions. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which cautioned against granting no-coercive orders in petitions under Article 226 or Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The court found no grounds to grant such relief, emphasizing that the petitioner could seek anticipatory bail if apprehensive of arrest.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to quash the ECIR or the summons. The court directed the ED to summon the petitioner at its Kolkata office, considering his age and health, with adequate police protection. The court emphasized that the petitioner must cooperate with the investigation and appear before the ED as required.

---