The absence of a scheduled offence precludes the establishment of money laundering charges under the PMLA, and the issuance of summons under PMLA is valid without the mandatory supply of ECIR.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners essentially pray for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to place on record ECIR No. SRZO /03/23, registered against the petitioners and for a writ of certiorari, to quash the said ECIR and all proceedings initiated consequent thereupon.

Brief Facts of the Case: -

2. The petitioner No. 1 is an insurance broker company. The petitioners 2 to 4 are its directors. The petitioner company, as is claimed, is an Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDA) approved insurance broker, having its registered office at A-23, Mandakini, Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi, and Corporate Office at “Trinity Towers” Noida, (UP). It is submitted that on 15th June, 2017, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, invited tenders from IRDAI, approved insurance brokers for designing and implementation of Group Mediclaim insurance policy for all the State Government employees, including the employees of PSUs/Autonomous Bodies/Local Bodies/Universities etc., and their dependent family members for a period of three years, extendable as per performance.

3. The petitioner company, after having qualified technical bid, and having been shortlisted, was appointed as an insurance broker to design and implement the Group Mediclaim insurance policy for the State Government employees, etc. An agreement between the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the petitioner company was executed on 27th November 2017. Subsequently, in the year 2018, a tripartite agreement dated 15th October, 2018, was executed between the petitioner company, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (“RGICL” for short), in order to provide the insurance services.

4. It is claimed by the petitioner company that for providing services in terms of the contract agreement dated 27th November, 2017, the petitioner company did not charge any remuneration from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner company, as it was stipulated in the contract agreement, received remuneration from RGICL only for a brief period of three months on account of brokerage charges. The tripartite agreement dated 15th October, 2018, as also the agreement between the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the petitioner company dated 27th November, 2017, were foreclosed by the Department of Finance, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, vide notice No. FD-VII-8(210)DONGE/2016, dated 30th November, 2018.

5. Since, the foreclosure of the entire insurance contract was based on some doubts expressed by several cross-sections of society as well as by the employees about the fairness and transparency in selecting and appointing the insurer, as such, the matter was referred to the Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB), to investigate the allegations of malpractice, if any, in awarding the insurance policy contract to RGICL. It is submitted that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), after making a thorough investigation, found no irregularity in the process. The preliminary verification undertaken by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, (ACB), was thus closed, and a report dated 8th February, 2023, in this regard, was submitted to the Government.

6. The petitioner company claims that it was fully absolved of any malpractice, as alleged by some employees of the Government. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the Anti-Corruption Bureau, (ACB), did not find any irregularity in the process of awarding contract of insurance to RGICL, yet a false and frivolous FIR bearing number RC1232022A0004 was registered on 19th April, 2022, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), at Srinagar.

7. It is claimed that the petitioner company and its directors fully participated and cooperated with the aforesaid investigation. However, no incriminating material was recovered connecting the petitioner company or its directors with the commission of any offence. It is submitted that the petitioner company and it