2024 (8) TMI 1676 - HC - Money Laundering

Illegality of arrest under PMLA and validity of a second ECIR based on quashed material - petition dismissed as previously decided.

The court addressed whether a second ECIR based on material from a previously quashed ECIR can support arrest under the PMLA and whether custodial ... Illegality of arrest under PMLA - Maintainability of a subsequent ECIR based on material in a quashed earlier ECIR - Validity of custodial remand/production warrants - Doctrine of conclusiveness where issue has been decided by coordinate Bench - HELD THAT:- It is the own case of the ED that the 1' ECIR is still intact and thus as per its own case, the 2nd ECIR is a second ECIR in relation to the same alleged transaction and alleged offence in the same case. Merely the ECIR number has changed and the allegations remain the same. Thus, as per the own case of the ED, arrest of the petitioner in relation to the 2nd ECIR would violate the constitutional rights of the petitioner. From perusal of the pleadings, it transpires that the relief which the petitioner had sought in Anwar Dhebar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement [2024 (10) TMI 446 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] is identical to that of the reliefs sought in this petition. The only additional reliefs which the petitioner seeks is in this petition is quashing of the order passed by the learned Special Judge, PMLA, Raipur by which the ED has been granted custody of the petitioner for six days. We have perused the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge (PMLA). The ED had filed an application under Section 167 Cr. P.C. and prayed for 7 days custodial remand against the petitioner-Anwar Dhebar and one co-accused Arunpati Tripathi on the ground that the investigation was incomplete. The order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, PMLA is quite detailed one and it has assigned the reasons for allowing. The petitioner had taken a plea before the learned Special Judge that the ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 was already quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and as such, the second ECIR was not maintainable on the basis of same materials. This issue has also been dealt with by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 721/2024. Since the issue involved in this petition has already been considered and decided by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 721/2024 vide order dated 20-08-2024 along with batch of petitions, there is no other view that can be taken except to dismiss this petition. Issues: Whether the petition seeking quashing of ECIR/RPZO/04/2024, declaration of the petitioner's arrest as illegal and quashing of remand/ED custody orders is maintainable and sustainable in view of the earlier Division Bench decision in Cr. M.P. No. 721/2024 and whether the arrest/remand were illegal.Analysis: The petition raises reliefs identical to those considered in Cr. M.P. No. 721/2024 decided on 20-08-2024 by a co-ordinate Division Bench. The Court examined the order dated 08-08-2024 by the Special Judge (PMLA) which records reasons for granting custodial remand under an application filed under Section 167 Cr. P.C. The petitioner's challenge that the second ECIR was a reiteration of an earlier quashed ECIR and that arrest/remand were impermissible under Section 19 PMLA and related provisions was the same issue earlier considered and decided. Having regard to the identity of reliefs and issues, and the detailed earlier decision on the same questions, no fresh ground was shown that would permit a different conclusion in this petition.Conclusion: The petition is dismissed as it is covered by the earlier decision in Cr. M.P. No. 721/2024; no interference is warranted with the impugned remand/order and the reliefs sought are refused.