TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 865
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Versus Union of India and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1048, and Parvathi Kollur and another Versus State by Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 688, since the petitioner has already been discharged of the predicate offences. 2. Submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner: 2A. Scheduled offences as the basis of ECIR:- (i) That the impugned ECIR (Annexure P-2) lists the scheduled offences as Section 121-A and Section 120-B IPC, stemming from FIR No.345 dated 27.08.2017 (Annexure P-3) under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 145, 150, 151, 152, 153, 146, 121, 216 of the IPC registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, where t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded in the schedule. However, in the instant case, as already highlighted earlier, the petitioner has already been discharged of the scheduled offence. Consequently, the proceedings under PMLA cannot persist solely on the basis of an offence under Section 120-B IPC. 3. Submissions made by learned counsel for respondent- Directorate of Enforcement (for short 'ED'): 3A. Preliminary objections on maintainability of the petition: (i). That the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of ECIR is not tenable, as it is an internal administrative document of the ED. It cannot be kept at par with an FIR, much less equated with it. Consequently, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Court, should not be constrained by overly technical interpretations. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 6. Without delving into the merits of the case, this Court at the outset would have to first address the preliminary objections raised by learned counsel for ED, wherein challenge has been laid to the maintainability of the instant petition. The primary question which has arisen for the consideration is whether the ECIR can be quashed in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. This necessitates an inquiry into the nature, scope and import of an ECIR. In this regard, it would be most relevant to reproduce the following observations ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion in 2002 Act requiring Authority referred to in Section 48 to record ECIR or to furnish copy thereof to the accused unlike Section 154 of the 1973 Code. The fact that such ECIR has not been recorded, does not come in the way of the authorities referred to in Section 48 of the 2002 Act to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating civil action of attachment of property being proceeds of crime by following prescribed procedure in that regard. 459. .....Suffice it to observe that ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR which is mandatorily required to be recorded and supplied to the accused as per the provisions of 1973 Code. Revealing a copy of an ECIR, if made mandatory, may defeat the purpose sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act inclu....