Point of Law: Offence of money-laundering - Investigation - Section 45 (1A) mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate into an offence under PMLA unless specifically authorised by a general or special order issued by Central Government.

JUDGMENT :

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers:

"(a) issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other Writ of like nature thereby Prohibiting the Respondent No. 1, to proceed with the investigation in FIR No. 123/2019, PS: EOW, Delhi against the Petitioners herein, being excluded per se Section 45(1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; in view of ensuing Proceedings being OA no. 38812020 pending before Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority (PMLA); and

(b) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ of like nature thereby commanding the Respondent No. 1 to abstain from taking any coercive action, enquiry against the Petitioners, pursuant to investigation in FIR No. 123/2019, PS: EOW, Delhi; and

(c) issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ of like nature and quash the notices dated 15.02.2021, 30.03.2021 15.04.2021 [Annexure(s) P-8, P-9 & P-11 respectively] issued by the Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner No. 2; and

(d) To pass such other direction/order as deemed appropriate in order to meet the ends of justice and in the interest of law."

2. Notice was issued on 04.06.2021. Status Report has been filed. As per the Status Report, a number of complaints were received against one Sanjay Bhati and others of M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited, having its registered office at Plot No.1, Chiti, Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, regarding cheating of approximately Rs.42 thousand crores. The Status Report reveals that the accused induced gullible victims to invest in a bike and receive monthly pay back, including principle and rental income on that bike for one year under the scheme. It is stated that being lured by the said scheme a number of persons invested money. It is stated that the accused absconded with the money and, on the basis of the allegation and inquiry conducted, FIR No.123/2019 dated 06.07.2019, was registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing for offences under Sections 420/406/120B IPC. Investigation was carried out. During investigation it was found that M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited, was not registered as a NBFC with the RBI and hence it was not authorized to initiate any collective investment scheme. Total 1544 complaints have been received from multiple victims till the filing of the Status Report. The role of the petitioner has been stated in the Status Report and the same reads as under:

"1. During the course of investigation it has been revealed that though accounts of accused companies i.e. M/s Garvit Innovative Promoter Limited (GIPL) and M/s Independent TV Ltd were already maintained with other Banks, but due to connivance by applicant/accused Vijay Sharma, account of the said companies were opened in M/s Noble cooperative Bank, of which accused Vijay Kumar Sharma was C.E.O. These accounts were used for remitting the money collected from the investors of "Bike Bot" without completion of KYC guidelines by the bank, of which petitioner was CEO.

2. Accused/Petitioner- Vijay Kumar Sharma facilitated main accused- Sanjay Bhati in getting cheque books in favor of M/s GIPL in bulk without due diligence, cheques from which were delivered to investors of GIPL, which later on bounced. These post-dated cheques resulted in appeasing the investors for long, thereby buying more time for the accused persons and delaying the reporting of the matter to the law enforcing agencies.

3. On 04.08.2018, Rs. 5 Crore was fraudulently transferred to M/s Noble Buildtech LLP from the accused company M/s Independent TV Ltd. Later on, it was revealed that said beneficiary firm i.e. M/s Noble Buildtech LLP was a partnership firm and accused Vijay Kumar Sharma and his son are partners of the said firm. Applicant/accused was examined regarding this fraudulent withdrawal, but he could not satisfactorily explain the said transactions."

3. Material on record indicates that the proceedings under the Prevention of Mon