The court ruled that petitions challenging investigative actions are premature while investigations are ongoing.

ORDER

% 23.01.2023 CRL.M.A. 19315/2021

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 2392/2021

3. This is a petition seeking the following prayers:

“a) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction calling upon the Respondent to bring on record and after examining the same quash and set aside the ECIR/06/HIU/2019 initiated by Respondent:

b) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction quashing and setting aside the notices dated 13.09.2021, 10.11.2021 and 16.11.2021 issued by IO in ECIR/06/HIU/2019 initiated by Respondent and

c) Stay the investigation in ECIR/06/HIU/2019 during the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition.”

4. It is stated by Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the petitioner sent money through bank accounts for purchase of property in London. There is no evasion of tax and hence there are no proceeds of crime.

5. Mr. Bhandari states that at best, the petitioner can be charged with under-reporting of money transferred abroad which does not generate proceeds of crime which is sine qua non for proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

6. He also states that there is an LoC issued against the petitioner which needs to be quashed.

7. In support he relies upon a judgment of this Court in „ Sathish Babu Sana vs. CBI ‟ in W.P.(Crl) 249/2019 and more particularly para 10 which reads as under:

“10. The petitioner thus satisfies the test laid down by this Court in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) as he has neither deliberately evaded arrest nor failed to appear before the Trial Court despite the non-bailable warrants nor has any coercive action been taken against him and he has travelled abroad number of times with the permission of the Court, which concession he did not misuse and therefore there is no justification in continuing with the LOC opened against the petitioner. Hence the respondent is directed to recall its request for opening the LOC against the petitioner. It is further directed that the petitioner will continue to join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and any condition that is imposed by the learned Special Judge in the complaint lodged pursuant to the ECIR, when the petitioner seeks permission to travel abroad will also be applicable in the abovenoted RC No. 224/2017/A-001, till the charge-sheet is filed and thereafter, if the petitioner is charge-sheeted and summoned as an accused.”

8. Per contra, Mr. Hossein, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the complaint made against the petitioner u/s 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and more particularly para 7 and 9 which reads as under:

“07. Sh. Raghav Bahl, has understood his investment in the London Property by E2. 73 lakhs. The value declared by Sh. Raghav Bahl in the FA schedule of his return of Income for A.Y. 2018-19 is only E5.8.4 lakhs. The property has been purchased in the name of Sh. Raghav Bahl. He has claimed that part of the payment towards this property has been made by Ms. Tara Bahl and RBRK investment Ltd. However, Sh. Raghav Bahl has failed to explain the nature of these payments made by Ms. Tara Bahl and RBRK investment Ltd. on his behalf, i.e. whether they are in the nature of loans/gifts, etc. moreover, no corresponding liability has been disclosed in his balance sheet of the year under consideration. Thus, it is apparent that the investment made in the property, over and above that declared in his return of income, is