ED communication under Section 66(2) PML Act validates FIR despite quashed prosecution complaint

Anil Tuteja, Anwar Dhebar, Arun Pati Tripathi, Niranjan Das Versus Station House Officer And 2 Others, State Of Up And 2 Others

Anil Tuteja, Anwar Dhebar, Arun Pati Tripathi, Niranjan Das Versus Station House Officer And 2 Others, State Of Up And 2 Others - 2024:AHC:163184 - DB Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the FIR based on the communication under Section 66(2) of the PML Act, 2002.
2. Validity of using statements recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 for lodging FIRs.
3. Jurisdictional issues regarding the FIR lodged in Uttar Pradesh for alleged crimes originating in Chhattisgarh.
4. Allegations of mala fide actions by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the State of Uttar Pradesh.
5. The impact of the Supreme Court's quashing of the prosecution complaint on subsequent FIRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the FIR:
The petitioners sought to quash the FIR dated 30.7.2023, arguing that it was based on the communication from the ED under Section 66(2) of the PML Act, 2002, which they claimed was invalid after the Supreme Court quashed the prosecution complaint. The court held that at the time of the communication on 28.7.2023, the prosecution complaint was still valid, and thus the FIR lodged on 30.7.2023 was not without basis. The court emphasized that the ED had a duty to share information with the relevant authorities, and the FIR disclosed cognizable offences under sections 420, 468, 471, 473, 484, and 120-B IPC.

2. Validity of Using Statements under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002:
The petitioners argued that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002, could not be used for initiating criminal proceedings under the IPC. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Prem Prakash vs. Union of India, which outlined that such statements are not confessions and can be used for investigation purposes. The court concluded that while these statements might not be admissible at trial, they could be used to initiate or further investigations.

3. Jurisdictional Issues:
The petitioners contended that the alleged offences originated in Chhattisgarh, and thus the FIR in Uttar Pradesh was without jurisdiction. The court found that since the alleged manufacturing of duplicate holograms occurred in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, it was appropriate for the State of Uttar Pradesh to act on the information provided by the ED.

4. Allegations of Mala Fide Actions:
The petitioners alleged that the FIR was a result of malicious actions by the ED and the State of Uttar Pradesh. The court rejected these claims, stating that the communication from the ED to Uttar Pradesh was legitimate and timely, especially given that Chhattisgarh had not acted on similar information. The court found no evidence of mala fide intent in the actions of the ED or the State of Uttar Pradesh.

5. Impact of the Supreme Court's Quashing of the Prosecution Complaint:
The petitioners argued that since the Supreme Court quashed the prosecution complaint, the FIR should also be invalidated. The court clarified that the Supreme Court's decision only affected the prosecution complaint and not the underlying information or investigations. The FIR was based on independent information and allegations that warranted investigation, regardless of the status of the prosecution complaint.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all writ petitions, holding that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the investigation should proceed. The petitioners were advised to seek remedies such as bail or anticipatory bail through the appropriate legal channels.