PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Sikandar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement And Another – Respondent
CRM-M-22478-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 27-08-2024
JUDGMENT :
Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.
1. Present petition has been filed, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, "Code"), inter alia, to set aside:-
i. the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 (P-17); thereby fresh warrants of arrest against the petitioner and co-accused were issued;
ii. order dated 01.05.2024 (P-22), vide which petitioner was remanded to the custody of Enforcement Directorate (for short, "E.D"), by learned Special Judge for a period of 05 days;
iii. order dated 01.05.2024 (P-23), whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code for discharge was declined;
iv. grounds of arrest dated 30.04.2024 (P-18); arrest order dated 30.04.2024 (P-19); and arrest memo, dated 30.04.2024 (P-20) issued by E.D against the petitioner.
Brief Facts:-
2. M/s Mahira Homes Pvt. Ltd is the holding company of various other associate companies, including M/s Sai Aaina Farms Pvt. Ltd. (for short, "SAFPL"), M/s Czar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Presently Mahira Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.) and M/s Mahira Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., which are dealing with construction projects in Sectors 68, 103 & 104; respectively, at Gurugram.
2.1 On 17.05.2016, the SAFPL applied for an Affordable Housing Project under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yoj ana-Urban for construction of 1500 Flats in the land measuring 9.96875 acres, situated in revenue estate of Village Badhsahpur, Sector 68, Gurugram.
2.2 On the basis of above request, the Director General, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, (for short, "DGTCP") issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) vide Memo. No.LC-3298-JE(VA)2017/27074 dated 27.10.2017 in favour of SAFPL. In order to comply with the terms & conditions of the aforesaid LOI, the SAFPL furnished two Bank Guarantees issued by IDBI Bank i.e.
(i) LC No.3298 B.G No,1401381BGF00103 for an amount of Rs.2,63,23,892/- towards External Development Charges (EDC); and
(ii) LC No.3298 B.G No,1401381BGF00104 for an amount of Rs.1,24,61,000/- in lieu of Internal Development Work (IDW)
2.3 Thereafter, vide memo dated 22.12.2017, the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (for short, "D.T.C.P") granted License No.106 of 2017 for construction of 1500 flats in favour of SAFPL, in Sector 68, Gurugram. Also transpires that SAFPL obtained requisite license on 02.02.2018 from Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short, "Act of 2016"). On the basis of above permission/license granted by D.T.C.P/HRERA, the SAFPL collected booking amount from 1500 prospective home buyers to the tune of Rs.363 crores.
2.4 One Neeraj Chaudhary, claiming to be the Additional Director of M/s D.S. Estates & Construction Pvt. Ltd.(in one of the companies of petitioner), filed two separate complaints (Nos.COMI/486/2020 & COMI/487/2020) before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram (for short "CJM"), under Section 200 of the Code read with Section 156(3) thereof, for registration of FIRs against SAFPL, present petitioner as well as other co-accused.
2.5 Learned CJM, vide order dated 07.01.2021 (P-1), directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Sushant Lok, Gurugram, for registration of FIRs and in pursuance thereof, FIR Nos. 10 & 11 dated 14.01.2021 were registered against SAFPL and other co-accused, including present petitioner, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") at Police Station, Sushant Lok, District Gurugram.
2.6 It was alleged in the above FIRs that SAFPL furnished fake bank guarantee(s) in favour of D.T.C.P while obtaining License No. 106 and apart that, cheated said Neeraj Chaudhary.
2.7 The contents of above FIRs were scrutinized by the E.D and it was found that offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467 & 471 IPC are falling within the definition of "scheduled offence'" as envisaged under Section 2(y) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "PMLA") and covered under Part-A of the Schedule thereof.
The court ruled that the arrest of the petitioner was unlawful due to insufficient evidence linking him to illegal mining, which is not a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Ac....
Compliance with Section 19 of PMLA and satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA are crucial for determining the validity of arrest and granting bail.
The court upheld the legality of the arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, confirming compliance with statutory requirements, including timely communication of grounds for arrest.
The necessity of providing documented 'reasons to believe' at the time of arrest under Section 19 of PMLA is a statutory requirement that must be adhered to for the arrest to be lawful.
Judicial review of PMLA arrests limited to procedural compliance; 'reasons to believe' under s.19 valid on prima facie material like seized assets, statements; no need for naming in predicate FIRs; o....
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as there were no reasonable grounds for believing that she had committed an off....
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.