IMPORTANT POINT
An ECIR is an internal document of the ED and cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as it does not equate to an FIR.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. :- Petitioner is seeking the quashing of Enforcement Case Information Report i.e. ECIR/01/CDZO/2018 dated 05.02.2018 being illegal and abuse of process of law in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Versus Union of India and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1048, and Parvathi Kollur and another Versus State by Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 688, since the petitioner has already been discharged of the predicate offences.

2. Submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner:

2A. Scheduled offences as the basis of ECIR:-

(i) That the impugned ECIR (Annexure P-2) lists the scheduled offences as Section 121-A and Section 120-B IPC, stemming from FIR No.345 dated 27.08.2017 (Annexure P-3) under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 145, 150, 151, 152, 153, 146, 121, 216 of the IPC registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, where the petitioner had also been implicated.

2B. Discharge in scheduled offences by trial Court:-

(i) That notably, the learned trial Court, Panchkula, vide its order dated 02.11.2019 (Annexure P-4), discharged the petitioner of the offences under Sections 121 and 121-A IPC. Therefore, given the discharge of the petitioner of the predicate offence, the continuance of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’), which were initiated on the strength of the predicate offence, would be against the settled law and an abuse of the legal process. In support learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments passed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Versus Union of India and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1048, and Parvathi Kollur and another Versus State by Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 688, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that if the accused is finally discharged or acquitted of the scheduled offence, or if the criminal case against the accused is quashed by a competent Court, the offences of PMLA would not subsist.

2C. The offence under Section 120-B of the IPC is not a standalone offence:-

(i) That it has been settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2779 of 2023 titled as Pavana Dibbur Versus The Directorate of Enforcement that an offence under Section 120-B of the IPC becomes a scheduled offence only if the alleged conspiracy is in relation to committing an offence included in the schedule. However, in the instant case, as already highlighted earlier, the petitioner has already been discharged of the scheduled offence. Consequently, the proceedings under PMLA cannot persist solely on the basis of an offence under Section 120-B IPC.

3. Submissions made by learned counsel for respondent- Directorate of Enforcement (for short ‘ED’):

3A. Preliminary objections on maintainability of the petition:

(i). That the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of ECIR is not tenable, as it is an internal administrative document of the ED. It cannot be kept at par with an FIR, much less equated with it. Consequently, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) are not applicable to the ECIR. In such circumstances, this Court cannot exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the ECIR. The appropriate remedy available to the petitioner would be to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’s case (supra), N. Dhanraj Kochar and others Versus Enforcement Directorate 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8794 and Jitender Nath Patnaik Versus ED, CRLMC No.2891 of 2023, decided on 02.09.2023.

3B. Survival of scheduled offence under Section 120-B IPC:

(i) That the petitioner has not yet been discharged under Section 120-B IPC. Since one of the alleged scheduled offences still subsists, there is no impediment in proceeding