SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Palli, Vikram Aggarwal, JJ.
Sikandar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
CRM-M No. 51250 of 2023
Decided On : 26-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. Ashok Aggarwal Senior, Advocate, Mr. Hari Pal, Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Mr. Shrenik Jain, Mr. Vikram Chaudhari Senior, Advocate, Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Mr. S.V. Raju Assistant Solicitor General of India, Mr. J.S. Lalli, Mr. Lokesh Narang, Mr. Shobit Phutela Senior Panel counsel

The court upheld the validity of the ECIR independent of the FIRs, affirming that non-bailable warrants were justified due to the petitioners' non-cooperation in the investigation.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3) and 200 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - The petitioners sought to quash the ECIR and related proceedings, arguing that the FIRs were rendered non-est after the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order was set aside. The court held that the ECIR could be recorded independently of the FIRs and that the existence of other FIRs justified the proceedings. (Paras 1, 12, 13, 14)

(B) Economic Offences - The court emphasized the need to separate legitimate claims from frivolous litigation, asserting that economic offences undermine the economy and must be addressed promptly. (Paras 11, 12)

(C) Non-Bailable Warrants - The issuance of non-bailable warrants was upheld as legal, given the petitioners' non-cooperation with the investigation. (Paras 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused of economic offences involving fraudulent activities in a housing project, leading to significant financial losses for investors. They challenged the legality of the ECIR and related warrants.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the ECIR was validly recorded and that the petitioners' arguments against the issuance of non-bailable warrants lacked merit.

Issues: The primary issues included the validity of the ECIR following the quashing of the FIRs and the legality of the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the ECIR could exist independently of the FIRs and that the issuance of non-bailable warrants was justified due to the petitioners' evasive conduct.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Judgment

Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, J.

CRM-47079-2023 , CRM-47080-2023 & CRM-47985-2023 in CRM-M-51250-2023 and

CRM-35285-2023 CRM-35305-2023 CRM-35308-2023 CRM-48105-2023 in CRM-M-37710-2023

Since the main petitions are being decided, the present applications have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of as such.

CRM-M-51250-2023 & CRM-M-37710-2023

1. The instant petitions shall be decided by way of a common judgment as the relief sought in both the petitions is identical. The petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court praying for the following substantive relief:-

1. Quash the ECIR/GNZO/20/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom as the same does not sustain the test of law, equity or justice in the sake of the Orders dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure P-13) passed by this Hon’ble Court in CRM-M No.3823 of 2021 thereby setting at naught the directions issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram on 07.01.2021 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for the registration of FIR (scheduled/predicate offence in the present case) and thereby rendering the said FIR No.11 dated 14.01.2021 (Annexure P-10) under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Sushant Lok (i.e. scheduled/predicate offence) to be rendered non-est; terminated and unworthy of being acted upon for any purpose whatsoever;

2. Quash the order dated 29.09.2023 (Annexure P-23) passed by Special Judge, Gurugram in CRM-627-2023, vide which arbitrarily and illegally non bailable warrants of arrest has been issued against the petitioner’

3. Quash the summons dated 28.07.2023 & 08.08.2023 (Annexures P-17 & P-18) and all subsequent summons issued to the petitioner as the same are wholly untenable in law;

4. Quash and set aside the action of the respondents in carrying out absolutely illegal, unwarranted and unjustified searches and seizures at the residential house etc. of the petitioners at Gurugram;

5. Stay all further proceedings arising out of ECIR/GNZO/20/2021, during the pendency of this Hon’ble Court.

6. Stay the operation and execution of the impugned warrants of arrest issued against the petitioners vide order dated 29.09.2023 (Annexure P-23) passed by Special Judge, Gurugram, during the pendency of this Hon’ble Court;

7. Pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

It would be essential to mention that in CRM-M-37710 of 2023, quashing of the order dated 29.09.2023 has not been sought, for, at the time of filing of the said petition, the order (ibid) had not been passed.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The facts, germane to the issue in hand, are being extracted from

3(i) One Neeraj Chaudhary submitted two complaints bearing Nos.486 of 2020 & 487 of 2020 (Annexures P-5 & P-6) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking directions for registration and investigation of the complaints (ibid) at Police Station Sushant Lok, Gurugram, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The petitioners Sikandar Singh and Vikas Chhoker were arraigned as accused in the said complaints apart from 13 other persons by name and other accused, if found involved after investigation. Broadly, the allegations were that the petitioners and other persons named in the complaint alongwith other unnamed persons were in construction business and had duped the investors after having obtained licence to develop a housing project in Sector 68, Gurugram which also had been obtained on submission of forged and fabricated documents. It was alleged that about 3000 investors had been left high and dry and a wrongful loss of around one thousand crores had been caused. Allegations were also of furnishing of fake bank guarantees, collaboration agreement, special power of attorney etc.

3(ii) Vide order dated 07.01.2021 (Annexure

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top