The Enforcement Directorate cannot act on allegations already dismissed by another investigation agency without new substantive evidence.

Mr. Narayan, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner, assisted by Mr. Sakya Sen, learned Senior Advocate, submits that in the present case, based on a complaint lodged by a public person, a case was registered.

The police authorities investigated the allegations and concluded that they lacked any substance, and acordingly submitted a final report.

However, the Enforcement Directorate has initiated proceedings based on the same allegations, conducted a search at the petitioner’s residence, and retained certain properties and/or materials. The petitioner apprehends that his bank account may be attached at any time, and therefore has approached this Court seeking quashing of the case initiated by the Enforcement Directorate, along with interim protection. Mr. Narayan submits that since an investigating agency has concluded that no predicate offence has been commited, the Enforcement Directorate had no jurisdiction to initiate a fresh case and conduct a fresh enquiry on the same cause of action.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocvate for the respondent, submits that a voluminous writ was served upon the Enforcement Directorate only yesterday, and therefore he has not yet been able to obtain the necessary instructions.

Mr. Chakraborty also raised the issue of maintainability of this writ petition. It is well settled that a writ court should exercise caution before restraining an investigating agency from investigating into the allegations leveled against any person.

It is noted that the Enforcement Directorate initiated the case way back in April, 2024.

Mr. Narayan has drawn my attention to page 134 of the writ petition and contends that the Enforcement Directorate intends to attach the petitioner’s back account.

Mr. Chakraborty has strongly refuted the petitioner’s contention that the Enforcement Directorate intends to attach the petitioner’s bank account. In view of this clear dispute raised by Mr. Chakraborty, I am of the considered opinion that no interim relief is warranted at this stage solely on the basis of the petitioner’s apprehension.

However, since both the issue of maintainability and the merits of the writ petition require consideration, let the matter be placed before the regular Bench on 13^th June, 2025 or soon thereafter, subject to its convenience.