2024 (3) TMI 132 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - duping investors after having obtained licence to develop a housing project which also had been obtained on submission of forged and fabricated documents - about 3000 investors had been left high and dry and a wrongful loss of around one thousand crores had been caused - furnishing of fake bank guarantees, collaboration agreement, special power of attorney etc. - HELD THAT:- It is common knowledge that of late, economic offences, which strike at the very economy of a country have spiralled. Scams running into hundreds and thousands of crores of rupees no longer surprise the common citizen as they seem to have become a norm. Litigation pertaining to these disputes are consuming substantial time of the Courts. Where there is an illegality, the same has to be struck down. At the same time, frivolous and luxury litigation needs to be discouraged. It is for the Courts to separate the grain from the chaff with a view to ensure that whereas the rights of citizens are not harmed, litigation also does not flood the Courts.

The first argument that once the operation of the impugned order dated 07.01.2021, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram and further proceedings in the consequential FIRs Nos. 10 & 11 dated 14.01.2021 respectively had been stayed, the ECIR could not have been recorded, is devoid of merit - It has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of MANIK BHATTACHARYA VERSUS. RAMESH MALIK AND ORS. [2022 (10) TMI 1196 - SUPREME COURT] that a restraint order passed in a criminal matter would not affect proceedings under the PMLA especially once the Enforcement Directorate was not a party to the same and also because the offence of money laundering is an independent offence wherein, an accused would have independent remedies in case of violation of the statutory provisions.

The second argument that once, vide orders dated 05.07.2023, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram had been directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the orders dated 07.01.2021 would be deemed to have been set aside and the consequential FIRs would become non-est and would be deemed to have been quashed or set aside is also devoid of merit.

The 3rd argument that non-bailable warrants could not have been issued in aid of investigation is also devoid of merit. Firstly, it has come on record that the petitioners had not been cooperating with the respondents and that while they initially appeared in pursuance to the notices issued, they gave evasive answers and now they have not been appearing in pursuance to the summons/notices issued by the respondents. If this argument was to be accepted, an Investigating Agency, be it the jurisdictional police, the Enforcement Directorate, CBI or any other agency would have no remedy if an accused chose not to cooperate with the investigation. It cannot be accepted that an Investigating Agency would be rendered without any remedy. Even otherwise, it is now well settled that an accused can very well be summoned or his presence can be compelled by way of non-bailable warrants by the Court at the instance of the Investigating Agency.

As regards the argument that petitioner Dharam Singh Chhoker had never been the director and, therefore, no proceedings could have been issued against them, the same is also devoid of merit. The argument that since Dharam Singh Chhoker was not arraigned as an accused in the complaints submitted by Neeraj Chaudhry, no proceedings could have been issued against him is also devoid of merit - All these issues have been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PAVANA DIBBUR VERSUS THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2023 (12) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held In a given case, if the prosecution for the scheduled offence ends in the acquittal of all the accused or discharge of all the accused or the proceedings of the scheduled offence are quashed in its entirety, the scheduled offence will not exist, and therefore, no one can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the PMLA as there will not be any proceeds of crime.

A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that even if one of the petitioners was not shown to be an accused, he could be prosecuted under the PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists. The scheduled offence, as already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, is not only in FIR Nos. 10 & 11 dated 14.01.2021 but also in other FIRs referred to therein. It is also clear from a perusal of the aforesaid judgment that since there were other FIRs also, proceeds of crime cannot be ruled out and, therefore, it cannot be said that no offence of money laundering can be said to have been committed - The reality would emerge only once the concerned Investigating Agencies conclude the investigation/inquiry.

The petitions are devoid of merit and accordingly, the same are dismissed.