Back
Rules Maintainable, Quashes Over Closed
The has delivered a significant judgment on the scope of judicial review under the ), holding that petitions under can be entertained to challenge ECIRs and associated actions. Justice Anish Dayal quashed the registered against members of the family after the underlying was closed, and struck down an that attempted to revive the proceedings based on an earlier, unrelated FIR.
The Background: A Family Dispute Escalates to
The case arises from a bitter family feud over the estate of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad, a seven-time MP and founder of the of pharmaceutical companies. After his death, two FIRs were registered. The first, in , alleged wrongful confinement of his wife and theft of jewellery. The second, in , involved alleged forgery and fraudulent transfer of shares and funds.
The ) registered an in based solely on the second FIR. However, the ) investigated and, with forensic confirmation of genuine signatures, filed a in , concluding no offence was made out. The trial court accepted this closure in .
Faced with a dead , the issued an in , incorporating the FIR as an additional to keep the proceedings alive. This prompted a batch of writ petitions from family members and company executives.
Maintainability: Held Proper
A preliminary battle was fought over whether these petitions could be filed as civil writs. The and complainants argued that the case belonged in criminal jurisdiction, as it concerned search, seizure, and potential prosecution.
Justice Anish Dayal, citing Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2023), held that is a legislation with distinct civil and criminal streams. At this stage, only (, ) were challenged — no complaint had been filed before the under . The court ruled: “This Court has jurisdiction in a Petition to consider a challenge to an instituted by the Enforcement Directorate.”
The court also rejected the objection regarding , noting that the challenge goes to the jurisdictional foundation of the , a matter beyond the ’s remit.
The : Death of the
The central question was whether proceedings could survive after the closure of the predicate FIR. The court answered with a firm no.
Analysing Vijay Madanlal , , and , Justice Dayal held that the existence of a is a . Once the is accepted and not stayed by a superior court, the loses its .
“To permit the investigation to nevertheless continue would open a whereby persons who stand discharged or acquitted… may continue indefinitely to be subjected to summons under as also proceedings.”
The court noted that all taken after the closure lacked jurisdiction. It quashed the proceedings and directed restoration of , while granting liberty to the to revive the if the is later revived by a judicial order.
The : A Colourable Exercise
The ’s post-closure , incorporating the FIR, also fell. The judgment meticulously catalogued the timeline: the first FIR had existed since , the knew about it from its own counter-affidavit filed in , yet chose not to act until the second FIR collapsed.
Justice Dayal found this conduct “wanting” and “vitiated by illegality and .” The was issued to breathe life into a dead proceeding — a .
The court distinguished cases like and , where subsequent FIRs related to the same transaction and were added while the original predicate was alive. Here, the first FIR pertained to separate allegations (jewellery theft, passport fraud) against different accused. It failed the “same transaction” test laid down in .
“The first FIR had not previously been treated by the as furnishing an independent basis for investigation…The fact that no was registered on the basis of the first FIR for almost six years… is a circumstance which assumes significance.”
The court quashed the and all consequential actions.
Key Observations from the Judgment
“The birth of an is dependent upon the existence of a … Once the investigating authority files a , accepted by the competent court, the conclusion receives a . It is difficult to comprehend how it can still be contended that a continues to exist.”
“The issuance of an was in effect seeking to breathe life into a proceeding which had lost its foundational basis. It is without jurisdiction, illegal, and procedurally irregular.”
“The proceedings under the which are sought to be kept alive by the , had itself ceased to legally subsist upon acceptance of the … the cannot survive.”
The Final Decision
Justice Anish Dayal disposed of all nine writ petitions with the following directions:
- The cannot initiate or continue any proceedings under /DLZO/II/72/ based on FIR No. 27/ (second FIR) unless the is revived by a superior court.
- All consequential proceedings, including coercive action, stand quashed, and shall be restored in favour of the petitioners.
- The dated incorporating FIR No. 279/ is legally unsustainable and quashed, along with all consequential actions.
The judgment reaffirms that the jurisdiction is available to challenge administrative actions under , and that the cannot be used as an open-ended tool to circumvent the closure of a .
