IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Dharam Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-26190 of 2024 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-05-2024
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J.
This is the first petition under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "PMLA") and all other enabling provisions in this regard, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in ECIR/GNZO/20/2021 (hereinafter to be referred as "ECIR") dated 16.11.2021.
2. Table of contents:-
| Title | Paras | Pages |
| Brief facts of the case | 3-5 | 2-7 |
| Arguments on behalf of the petitioner | 6-10 | 7-12 |
| Arguments on behalf of the respondent | 11-19 | 12-25 |
| Rebuttal arguments on behalf of the petitioner | 20-21 | 25-26 |
| Analysis and Findings (i) Details of four subsequent FIRs (ii) Chart showing the details of the petitioner being Director of various companies of Mahira Group | 22-50, 25, 29-32, 26 | 26-66 27, 30-34, 28 |
Brief Facts Of The Case:-
3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that M/s Sai Aaina Farms Pvt. Ltd. (presently known as M/s Mahira Infratech Pvt. Ltd and hereinafter referred to as "SAFPL") was controlled by Chhoker Family i.e. by the present petitioner and his sons Sikander Singh and Vikas Chhoker and the companies of the Chhoker family are known by the name "Mahira Group" and the said Mahira Group deals majorly in real estate / construction projects and that SAFPL is also one of the several companies under the Mahira group and the said company undertook the project of building flats at Sector 68, Gurugram, under the affordable group housing project and SAFPL applied for licences / permissions to the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana and were granted licence no.106/2017 to build around 1500 flats in an area of about 10 acres and the project was required to be completed by 2021-22 and the said licence was granted on the basis of documents / bank guarantees provided to the department. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the basis of the licence/ permission granted, SAFPL started bookings for the flats and collected around Rs. 360 crores from 1500 home buyers, although the construction work was slow paced and promised deadlines had been missed. Initially an FIR no.11 was registered by Sushant Lok Police Station, Gurugram, Haryana on 14.01.2021 under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against SAFPL and other persons which included sons of the petitioner Sikander Singh and Vikas Kumar. The present ECIR dated 16.11.2021 was recorded at the Gurugram Zonal Office of Directorate of Enforcement under the PMLA, on account of the fact that a prima facie case of commission of the offence of money laundering was made out. It was further the case of the prosecution that forged bank guarantees were submitted by SAFPL to the Director, Town and Country Planning with respect to external development charges and internal development work for an amount of Rs. 2,63,23,892/- and Rs. 1,24,61,000/- respectively and the accused persons had directly / indirectly indulged in criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery etc. and thus, committed offences which were scheduled offences and generated proceeds of crime and made illegal/ wrongful gains. During the course of investigation, various other FIRs pertaining to commission of scheduled offences by the group companies of Mahira Group including SAFPL were also registered and the said FIRs were also taken on record by the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as "ED") for the purpose of comprehensive investigation. The details of the said FIRs are reproduced herienbelow:-
| FIR No. | Police Station | Offences | Remarks |
| 0151 dated 31.05.2023 (P-28) Pg 375 | Rajendra park, Gurugram | Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC,1860 | M/s Mahira Buildtech Private Limited, and others regarding affixing forged and fabricated signatures of landowners for getting licences |
| 0152 dated 01.06.2023 (P-31) Pg 396 | Rajendra park, Gurugram | Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC,1860 | M/s CZAR Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. a |
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co.(P) Ltd.
Anticipatory bail under the PMLA requires clear evidence that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The presence of a scheduled offence legitimizes the existence of an ECIR and allows the department to continue the investigation. However, the settlement or quashing of scheduled offences in FIRs pro....
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.
The court established that the offense of money laundering under PMLA cannot exist independently of a scheduled offense.
A quashed FIR does not automatically invalidate an ECIR; the ECIR is independent and requires substantive grounds for quashing based on the merits of the predicate offence under PMLA.
FIR and ECIR become two different documents and both tend to take shape on its own, independent of each other.
Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not sustainable without a registered scheduled offence, as established by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
The court ruled that in economic offenses, particularly money laundering, anticipatory bail is rarely granted due to the grave nature of allegations and potential interference with investigations.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings cannot survive if the predicate offences linked to them are closed by the court, indicating the non-existence of 'proceeds of crime'.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.