TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L') is controlled by family of the present petitioner and his sons, Sikander Singh and Vikas Chhoker. The companies of Chhoker family are known as 'Mahira Group' which primarily deal with real estate, and SAFPL is also one of several such companies under the Group which started affordable group housing project at Sector 68, Gurugram. SAFPL applied for licences/permissions to the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, and was granted licence no.106/2017 to build around 1500 flats in an area of about 10 acres; the project was required to be completed by 2021-22. 2.1. SAFPL started bookings of flats and collected about Rs.363 crores from the home buyers. The construction work remained slow-paced and the promised deadlines were missed. This resulted into filing a complaint before the Magisterial Court at Gurugram and pursuant to directions issued by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., on 07.01.2021, FIR no. 11, dated 14.01.2021, was registered. The petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the FIR. 2.2. The order passed by the Magistrate was challenged by the affected persons before this Court by filing, CRM-M-3823-2021, wherein vide interim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an affidavit, which was verified by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram, to the effect that physical progress in about 800 flats falling in Tower-A to Tower-G is approximately 80-95 per cent, and physical progress in balance 200 flats with respect to Tower-H to Tower-N is approximately 75- 2.8. During pendency of proceedings before this Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, in proceeding under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., passed a fresh order, dated 26.10.2023, Annexure P-14, directing investigation in the aforementioned FIR no.11 of 2021. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing, CRM-M-56495-2023, which was allowed vide order dated 16.01.2024, Annexure P-15, wherein the CJM's order, dated 26.10.2023, was set aside and the FIR was declared a nullity. Further, directions were issued to the Magistrate to decide the application made by the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., afresh in the light of observations made in the judgment. Later, the complainant withdrew his complaint, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.02.2024, Annexure P-16. 2.9. The petitioner thereafter filed another petition, CRM-M-37710- 202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Judge again issued warrants of arrest against the petitioner vide order dated 30.05.2024, Annexure P-28. The ED's request for issuance of proclamation against the petitioner and his son (Vikas Chokkar) was, however, declined by the Special Judge by taking into consideration the material on the file, that showed after the order, dated 29.04.2024, no efforts had been made to secure the presence of the accused through warrants of. 2.14. The ED filed a prosecution complaint, Annexure P-27, against the petitioner on 27.06.2024 before the Special Judge for commission of offence of Money Laundering as defined under Section 3 read with Section 70 and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. 2.15. Another petition, CWP-25140-2024, was filed before this Court by one Virender Singh son of Bharat Singh Chhoker, who was aspiring to contest election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from the constituency from where the petitioner had been contesting the election, seeking the latter's arrest. The petition was allowed by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2024, by observing as under: 35. For all the above stated reasons, this Court finds merit in the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll as 'grounds of arrest'. The petitioner duly recorded his protest against his illegal arrest effected by the ED without showing him warrants, and assaulting him physically. He was produced before the Special Judge for the purpose of remand on 05.05.2025 at 11:00 am, and was remanded to ED's custody till 09.05.2025, vide impugned order dated 05.05.2025. His custody to the ED was further extended till 13.05.2025, vide impugned order dated 09.05.2025. The ED again sought his remand for ten days and his custody was given upto 17.05.2025, vide impugned order dated 13.05.2025. On 17.05.2025, the petitioner was again produced before the Special Judge, when the ED made another application to send him to judicial custody, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 17.05.2025. The petitioner, accordingly, remains in judicial custody to date. 2.19. Thereafter, the petitioner withdrew his SLP (Civil) Diary no.25567 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.05.2025, with the following observations: We have been informed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order of the High Court has been given effect to and the petitioner has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 929 have also been violated with impunity by the ED. 3.1. Secondly, learned senior counsel has contended that in terms of law laid down in V. Senthil Balaji v. State and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 934, the ED was required to satisfy the Special Judge with adequate material regarding the need for petitioner's custody which was not done, nor did the Special Judge took this important aspect into consideration while granting the petitioner's remand/custody. This non-compliance entitles the petitioner to release from custody. Besides, the 'reasons to believe' and 'grounds of arrest' are sham documents as its many paragraphs are identical to the prosecution complaint that was filed against the petitioner's sons on 27.06.2024. Also, violation of Section 19(2) PMLA has been established as the authorised officer failed to forward copies of the 'grounds of arrest', 'reasons to believe', arrest order and arrest memo to the adjudicating authority/Special Judge, vide memo dated 05.05.2025, Annexure P-49. 3.2. Thirdly, it has been contended that there was no neces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e person so arrested has to be brought before the Court without unnecessary delay. These mandatory procedures have not been followed. 4. Per contra, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for the ED, firstly submitted that there was sufficient material with the ED to arrest the petitioner and the same had already been examined by two Division Benches vide judgments dated 26.02.2024 and 23.10.2024, and also by learned Single Judge while dismissing the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail vide order dated 28.05.2024. The petitioner's complicity in the crime alleged against him already stands established before this Court, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no material with the ED to arrest him. 4.1. Secondly, it has been contended by learned counsel for the ED that the arrest was strictly in compliance with the procedure laid down in law. The petitioner was first arrested from the Hotel on 04.05.2025 at 09:30 pm by executing the non-bailable warrants issued against him by the Special Judge, pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench vide order dated 23.10.2024. He was duly shown a copy of the warrants, as admitted by the petitioner himself. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....persons/entities are yet to be unearthed. The Mahira Group companies were already under the petitioner's control and he had been taking vital decisions regarding the financial transactions and funds from the home buyers meant for construction of this project which were deviated in different forms clandestinely. And as held by Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji case (supra), the arrest can be in aid of investigation, as it is in the petitioner's case. 5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 6. The petitioner is accused of committing the offence under Section 3, read with Section 70, and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, and an inquiry ECIR/GNZO/20/2021, dated 16.11.2021, has been registered against him on the basis of four FIRs mentioned in para 2.5 hereinbefore. He statedly controls the company, SAFPL, along with his sons which started an affordable an group housing project in Sector 68, Gurugram, and was granted the licence to build around 1500 flats. The home buyers' money received by the Company is alleged to have been siphoned off by the petitioner in the form of loans and acquisition of properties, apart from making ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he NBWs to the petitioner is concerned, it is an admitted fact that he was shown a soft copy of the warrants on mobile phone by the arresting officer. The requirements under Section 75 Cr. P.C. is that 'the police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall notify the substance thereof to the person to be arrested, and, if so required, shall show him the warrant.' Concededly, the petitioner was shown a soft copy of the warrants, which means substance thereof was notified to him by the officer. Also, it is not the petitioner's case that he ever asked the officer to show him a hard copy of the warrants. Accordingly, there is no violation of procedure in execution of NBWs issued against him by the Special Judge, and the arrest cannot be said to be vitiated on that account. 9. Section 19 PMLA reads as under: 19. Power to arrest .- (1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in exercise of power of judicial review. If adequate and due care is taken by DoE to ensure that the "reasons to believe" justify the arrest in terms of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, the exercise of power of judicial review would not be a cause of concern. Doubts will only arise when the reasons recorded by the authority are not clear and lucid, and therefore a deeper and in-depth scrutiny is required. Arrest, after all, cannot be made arbitrarily and on the whims and fancies of the authorities. It is to be made on the basis of the valid "reasons to believe", meeting the parameters prescribed by the law. In fact, not to undertake judicial scrutiny when justified and necessary, would be an abdication and failure of constitutional and statutory duty placed on the court to ensure that the fundamental right to life and liberty is not violated. 45 and 46 XXX XXX XXX 47. DoE has drawn our attention to the use of the expression "material in possession" in Section 19(1) of the PML Act instead of "evidence in possession". Though etymologically correct, this argument overlooks the requirement that the designated officer should and must, based on the material, reach and form....