ED summons cannot be quashed for not specifying documents in Rs 57.29 crore money laundering investigation

Delhi HC denied interim relief to petitioner challenging ED investigation in money laundering case involving Rs. 57.29 crores bank fraud. Court held ED summons cannot be quashed for not specifying documents required for investigation, as ECIR is internal document and evidence need not be revealed at this stage. Since petitioner not absolved of scheduled offence through discharge/acquittal/quashing, protection orders cannot be issued ignoring Section 45 PMLA bail mandate. Summoning cannot be stalled on mere apprehension of arrest. Application disposed without merit observations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The petition involves issues related to the quashing of ED investigation and associated proceedings, the validity of summons issued by the respondent, and the transfer of ED investigation from Ahmedabad to Delhi.

Summary:

Quashing of ED Investigation and Proceedings:
The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the continuance of ED investigation based on a complaint by Bank of Baroda. The petitioner argued that the EY Audit, the basis of the investigation, was declared unreliable by the NCLT Ahmedabad, and there was no evidence of "proceeds of crime." The petitioner contended that the investigation was a fishing expedition and arbitrary exercise of power. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support the quashing of the investigation.

Validity of Summons:
The petitioner raised concerns about the vagueness of the summons dated 22.02.2024, as it did not specify if the petitioner was summoned as a witness or a suspect, nor did it detail the documents to be investigated. The petitioner argued that the summons lacked clarity, making it a fishing expedition. The petitioner sought relief from coercive steps pending the disposal of the petition.

Transfer of Investigation:
The petitioner objected to the transfer of the ED investigation from Ahmedabad to Delhi, alleging that the transfer was arbitrary and should be set aside. The petitioner argued that the transfer was not justified and sought relief from any coercive steps during the pendency of the petition.

Court's Decision:
The court dismissed the application, stating that no grounds for interim relief were established at that stage. The court clarified that no observations were made on the merits of the ED proceedings, leaving the questions open for consideration in light of the ongoing investigation. The application was disposed of, with the case listed for a future date.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the petitioner's plea to quash the ED investigation and associated proceedings, citing insufficient grounds for interim relief. The court emphasized that the validity of the summons and the transfer of the investigation would be considered in the context of the ongoing ED inquiry.

---