PMLA summons and ED investigation: interim protection refused where jurisdiction and proceeds of crime remained under inquiry.

Interim protection in a money-laundering inquiry was declined because the ED's summons power under the PMLA is aimed at collecting information and evidence on proceeds of crime, and the summons could not be quashed merely for not listing the required documents. Earlier insolvency-related orders and anticipatory bail in the predicate case did not, at that stage, show that the petitioner was unconnected with proceeds of crime or deprive the ED of investigative jurisdiction. The petitioner had not been absolved of the scheduled offence, and the Court refused to grant protective relief through inherent jurisdiction in a manner equivalent to anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim protection should be granted by staying the ED investigation and summons and by directing that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner in a money-laundering investigation.

Analysis: The application sought interim interference with an ongoing ED inquiry arising from a scheduled offence. The Court held that the summons issued during investigation could not be quashed merely because the summons did not specify the documents required for inquiry, since the summons power under the PMLA is meant to collect information and evidence regarding proceeds of crime. It further held that the earlier insolvency-related orders and the grant of anticipatory bail in the predicate case did not, at this stage, establish that the petitioner was unconnected with proceeds of crime or divest the ED of jurisdiction to investigate. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not been absolved of the scheduled offence and that protective relief could not be granted by invoking inherent jurisdiction in a manner that would amount to anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: No interim relief was made out, and the request to stay the investigation, quash the summons, or restrain coercive action was declined.

---