IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the statutory powers of the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the need for concrete evidence to determine association with proceeds of crime.

ORDER

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.

CRL.M.A.7287/2024

1. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner with the following prayers:

"a. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to provide a copy of the ECR/AMZO/12/2021 to the Petitioner along with complete records and annexures [if any] and also place the same before this Hon'ble Court;

b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the ECIR being ECIR/AMZ0/12/2021 and all consequential investigations and proceedings arising out of the same initiated against the Petitioner by the Respondents;

c. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of a mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the summon dated 22.02.2024 issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent No 2 in relation to the ECIR being ECR/AMZ0/12/2021.

d. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside of the order/directive/noting vide which the ED investigation was transferred from Ahmedabad to Delhi.

e. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct no coercive steps be taken against the Petitioner in relation to impugned ECIR No. ECR/AMZ0/12/2021."

2. CRL.M.A.7827/2024 preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers is pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner:

"Pass ad-interim ex-parte order staying the ED investigation arising out of ECIR No. AMZ0/12/2021 and the Impugned Summons dated 22.02.2024; and/or

b. Pass ad-interim ex-parte order directing the Respondent to forthwith refrain from taking any further coercive steps against the Petitioner"

3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the continuance of ED investigation conducted by the respondent based on RC 0772020E0002 dated 02.12.2020 by CBI Mumbai under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against M/s Technovaa Plastic Industries Private Limited (Company) and others, wherein petitioner is named as accused No.3.

4. In brief, as per the case of the petitioner, M/s Technovaa Plastic Industries Private Limited was sanctioned a term loan of Rs.85.62 crores by Bank of Baroda which was disbursed and utilized before 01.04.2015. The account of the company was declared NPA by Bank of Baroda on 30.03.2018 and further M/s Ernst & Young were engaged for conducting forensic audit of the company for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2018.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that NCLT Ahmedabad admitted an application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the company. Thereafter, in one of the CoC meetings, once again M/s Ernst & Young LLP was appointed by Bank of Baroda to conduct forensic audit of the company and the report of the same became the basis of adverse proceedings initiated by Bank of Baroda. A written complaint dated 02.12.2020 was filed by Bank of Baroda based on EY audit alleging that the company along with others including the petitioner committed bank fraud to the tune of Rs.57.29 crores.

6. Based upon the said complaint of Bank of Baroda, RC0772020E0002 dated 02.12.2020 was registered by CBI. Accused persons including the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court by way of W.P. (Crl.) 4862/2022 seeking quashing of FIR dated 02.12.2020 registered by CBI, which was subsequently withdrawn on 08.12.2023 granting liberty to the accused to approach afresh, if they were chargesheeted in the proceedings. Petitioner is also stated to have been granted anticipatory bail vide order date