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

2025 Supreme(All) 3668

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, JJ.
Satinder Singh Bhasin – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. 9232 of 2025 With Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. 15414 of 2025
Decided On : 18-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Aditya Yadav, Malay Prasad, Saloni Mathur, Shivam Yadav, Tanya Makker
For the Respondents: Pankaj Kumar Shukla, G.A., Manoj Kumar Singh, Sushant

A predicate offence must exist for PMLA investigations to proceed; if proceedings are stayed, then related investigations, including ECIR and NBWs, must also desist.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3 and 5 - Challenge to Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) issued against petitioner - Proceedings based on consolidated FIR of multiple predicate offences including FIR under Section 406 IPC, not a scheduled offence under PMLA - Stay of proceedings in the predicate FIR affects continuation of PMLA investigation - Petition partially allowed, NBWs quashed and investigation stayed regarding consolidated FIR; investigations regarding unrelated FIRs allowed to continue. (Paras 194-200)

(B) Money Laundering - Jurisdiction - Need for existence of scheduled offence as a prerequisite for investigation under PMLA upheld; closure or stay of predicate offence impacts PMLA proceedings. (Paras 141-160)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed for quashing of ECIR and NBWs alleging lack of jurisdiction under PMLA due to stay on predicate FIR consolidated by the Supreme Court. Claim of unlawful detention and multiple FIRs relayed against various transactions were discussed. Last action by ED was the issuance of NBWs based on alleged non-compliance with summons and ongoing investigations affecting financial fraud linked to various projects. (Paras 1-20, 106-199)

Findings of Court:
The Court agreed with the petitioner’s assertions regarding the necessity of predicate offences for the applicability of PMLA, particularly highlighting specific provisions and conditions. It ruled on the propriety of invoking NBWs based on shared principles regarding individual liberty and investigatory parameters. (Paras 194-200)

Issues: Whether the stay of proceedings in the predicate FIRs affects the validity of PMLA investigations and the issuance of NBWs. (Paras 140-200)

Ratio Decidendi: The necessity of a subsisting scheduled offence for PMLA proceedings was emphasized. The issuance of NBWs was deemed inappropriate given the context of the petitioner’s engagement with the ED and the nature of the investigation extending over several years. The petitioner was directed to comply with the established judicial framework while the stay on consolidated investigations was operationalized. (Paras 194-200)

Result: The NBWs issued against the petitioner were quashed, investigations based on consolidated FIRs were stayed, but investigations regarding other predicate FIRs were allowed to continue.

Table of Content
1. description of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. details on investigations and allegations against the petitioner. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. summary of petitions filed by the petitioner. (Para 21 , 22)
4. arguments concerning the jurisdictional flaws in the ecir. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. contentions regarding the issuance of non-bailable warrants. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
6. submissions regarding illegal detention and its implications. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
7. statements regarding the lack of proceeds of crime. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
8. arguments supporting the ed's investigation maintainability. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
9. ed's defense against the petitioner's claims. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)
10. ed's validation for issuing nbws. (Para 69 , 70 , 71)
11. discussion on compliance and procedures with references to broader principles. (Para 72 , 73 , 74)
12. analysis of the parameters governing issuance of nbws. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80)
13. legal reasoning concerning the nature of ecir and its authority. (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88)
14. insight on the legal binding aspects and the scope of judicial review. (Para 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94)
15. conclusion regarding the relationship between court orders and pmla proceedings. (Para 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100)
16. final assertions balancing individual rights with effective investigation. (Para 101 , 102 , 103 , 104)

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. Since both the afore-captioned Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the ECIR/LKZO/14/2021, they have been heard together and are being disposed by means of this common order. For adjudication of both the writ petitions the facts of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9232 of 2025 has been taken.

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 11.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad whereby open ended Non-Bailable Warrants have been issued against the petitioner in relation to ECIR/LKZO/14/2021;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamum or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction restraining the respondent, its officers, or any person acting under its authority, from initiating or continuing any coercive actions against the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in relation to ECIR/LKZO/14/2021 or related matters;

(iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the Enforcement Case Information Report bearing no.ECIR/LKZO/14/2021 registered by the respondent pursuant to FIR No.353 of 2015 dated 09.06.2015, along with all consequential proceedings, including the raids conducted on 10.04.2025, as being illegal, ultra vires and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution;

(iv) Declare the respondent’s action in registering the ECIR and conducting raids as ultra vires the PMLA and unconstitutional for want of a predicate offence, violating Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.”

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The petitioner, Satinder Singh Bhasin, is an individual residing New Delhi, and was one of the Directors of M/s Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter “BIIPL”), a company engaged in the development of a large commercial project known as “The Grand Venice Mall” at Greater Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar. The project was undertaken on a commercial plot allotted by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority for the development of a theme-based commercial mall and an adjoining commercial tower (hereinafter “subject property”).

4

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