HC dismisses writ petition challenging PMLA arrest order due to lack of territorial jurisdiction over money laundering case

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an arrest order under PMLA for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner, allegedly involved in money laundering through illegal mining proceeds, was arrested in New Delhi with ECIR lodged in Delhi. Though initial FIRs were filed in Himachal Pradesh jurisdiction and raids conducted there, the scheduled offence was registered in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The court held that mere initial proceedings in its jurisdiction did not establish territorial jurisdiction when the predicate offence and subsequent proceedings occurred in Uttar Pradesh. The petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

1. Whether the Himachal Pradesh High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the arrest under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

2. Whether the arrest order dated 18.11.2024 and subsequent remand orders are valid and lawful.

3. Whether the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution were violated.

4. Whether the proceedings and arrest were conducted in accordance with the legal framework established under the PMLA and other relevant laws.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court:

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered Sections 177 to 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and corresponding Sections 197 to 200 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which govern the territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts. Additionally, precedents such as Rana Ayyub vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Rahul Modi vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office were examined.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the predicate offence was committed in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, and the FIR was lodged there, giving the Special Court at Ghaziabad jurisdiction over the matter. The Himachal Pradesh High Court determined it lacked jurisdiction as the arrest and subsequent proceedings occurred outside its territorial limits.

2. Validity of the Arrest and Remand Orders:

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The arrest was made under Section 19 of the PMLA, which requires a "reason to believe" that the person is guilty of an offence. The Court referred to judgments such as Vijay Mandanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India and others to assess the legality of the arrest.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court chose not to delve into the merits of the arrest's legality due to its conclusion on jurisdiction. However, it acknowledged the need for compliance with the procedural safeguards under the PMLA and fundamental rights under the Constitution.

3. Alleged Violation of Fundamental Rights:

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution safeguard personal liberty and the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest. The Court considered these provisions in light of the petitioner's claims.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court did not address the merits of the alleged violations due to its jurisdictional findings but recognized the importance of these constitutional protections in arrest procedures.

4. Compliance with PMLA and Related Laws:

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The PMLA's provisions, including Sections 3 and 4, were central to the analysis. The Court also considered the procedural requirements for arrest and remand under the Act.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court refrained from examining the compliance with PMLA provisions due to the jurisdictional conclusion. Nonetheless, it underscored the necessity for adherence to legal standards in enforcement actions.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core principles established: The judgment reaffirmed the principle that territorial jurisdiction is a fundamental consideration in determining the appropriate forum for legal challenges. The Court emphasized that jurisdictional issues must be resolved before addressing the merits of a case.

Final determinations on each issue: The Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition due to the location of the predicate offence and subsequent proceedings in Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, it dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner to seek remedies in the appropriate jurisdiction.

---