Gurjinder Pal Singh S/o Late Parmjeet Singh Plaha Aged About 56 Years Present Address v. 1 - Director Enforcement Directorate HQRS OfÏce, Room No. 201 A- Block, Pravartan Bhawan
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6050-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 71 of 2025 Gurjinder Pal Singh S/o Late Parmjeet Singh Plaha Aged About 56 Years Present Address- E-1, National Highway Colony, Vivekenand Nagar, Pensionbada, Raipur- 492001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Director Enforcement Directorate HQRS OfÏce, Room No. 201 A- Block, Pravartan Bhawan, Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi- 110011 2 - Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate, HQRS OfÏce, Room No. 201 A- Block, Pravartan Bhawan, Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi- 110011 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, C.G. 4 - Superintendent Of Police Anti Corruption Bureau/economic Offences Wing (Acb/eow), Chhattisgarh, Raipur 5 - Station House OfÏcer Police Station, ACB/EOW, Chhattisgarh, Raipur ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner(s) For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 to 5 : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate. : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03/02/2025 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of ECIR/18/HIU/2021, dated 09.08.2021 registered under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and all consequential proceedings thereto, including notice dated 13.10.2021 and 08.11.2023 issued to the petitioner. 2. The facts, as projected by the petitioner is that he is a meritorious and decorated ofÏcer of the Indian Police Service (IPS), selected in the Indian Police Service (IPS) on 04.09.1994. He is having a stellar, impeccable, and unblemished career spanning over 28 years of devoted service. He is also the recipient of Police Medal for Gallantry for his exceptional service beyond the call of duty and President's police medal for meritorious service. He was posted as the Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau & Economic Offences Wing ("ACB/EOW) from February 28, 2019 to June 19, 2019 and thereafter, was promoted to the post of Additional Director General of Police and served as Director, ACB/EOW from June 20, 2019 to June 01, 2020. During this tenure, the petitioner handled various high profile and sensitive investigations with full dedication, diligence and in utmost dispassionate manner. But despite this he was abruptly transferred to the post of Director, State Police Academy on June 01, 2020. 3. Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer of the petitioner from ACB/EOW to the police academy was effected due to the ill-feelings nurtured against him by some top 3 functionaries of the State Government. As the petitioner had not followed their illegal and wrongful instructions in certain crucial cases before him while heading the ACB/EOW. The State OfÏcials conspired to levy a horde of fabricated and fictitious FIRs on the Petitioner. On the basis of a manufactured source information FIR No. 22/21, dated 29.06.2021, PS ACB / EOW was registered under section 13(1)B, 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, the PC Act). Thereafter, charge sheet has been filed after completion of investigation on 08.03.2022 under section 13(1)E, 13(2), 12 of the PC Act and under Sections 201, 467, 471 read with 120B of IPC. The petitioner in the present FIR had filed CrMP No. 2747/2023 challenging the order dated 04.08.2023 of charge framing under section 13(1)E, 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 201, 467, 471 read with 120B of IPC as well as prosecution sanction order dated 04.03.2022 under section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, the Cr.P.C.) and prosecution sanction order 19.09.2022 under Section 19 of the PC Act. The said CrMP was allowed vide order dated 13.11.2024. From perusal of the observations of this Hon’ble Court made in the said order, it is clear that the entire FIR was registered to rope in the petitioner in false and fabricated case as he could not place himself in the good books of the then regime. It is pertinent to mention that the said predicate FIR was again challenged by way of Cr.M.P 3502/24 and Cr.M.P 3511/24 by the other accused also. The said petitions were also allowed quashing the said FIR and its entire consequent criminal proceedings vide order dated 13.11.2024 by this Court. 4. Mr. Himanshu Pandey further submits that when nothing substantial during the search of the petitioner's residence was found, in order to frame the Petitioner in disproportionate assets case, the prosecution agency planted and recovered 2 kgs of gold bullions/bars in the scooty of 4 one SBI ofÏcer Mr Mani Bhushan who was not even arraigned as a co- accused. Only on the basis of his statement and without any further enquiry, petitioner was booked in the said case. The most crucial digital evidence of the said recovery by way of hard disk of the DVR containing the CCTV footage which was seized by the investigating ofÏcer, instead of being produced before the Trial Court was suppressed. The malafides is reflected in the note-sheet of District Prosecution ofÏcer (DPO) wherein he observed about the malicious mis-conduct of the investigation ofÏcer by mentioning that without following due procedure of law the seized DVR was handed over to the private guard of the SBI despite of the fact that the said property was Court's property and the same was suppressed from the learned trial court. The malafide of the investigating agency was confirmed from the comments of ACB itself in its reply dated 21.05.2024 which was submitted to the Home Department wherein it was admitted that no investigation was carried out pertaining to the properties mentioned at serial no 7 to 17 in the said FIR, therefore no documents were available. The malicious conduct is further evident from the fact that the person from whom 2kg of gold bar was seized was not made an accused and the scooty from which it was recovered was also not in the name of petitioner. Therefore, despite no evidence to connect the petitioner with the said gold bars its value was put on his shoulder. Pertaining to disproportionate assets case also, the Hon'ble court observed that there is no material to prove a case of disproportionate assets against him. Therefore, once entire criminal proceeding has been quashed with respect to all the accused then said ECIR registered on the basis of the predicate FIR is liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. Himanshu Pandey next submits that on the basis of same factual matrix departmental charge sheet dated 12.08.2021 was issued to the 5 petitioner and as a punitive measure, compulsory retirement order dated 20.07.2023 was passed against the petitioner as a short cut to departmental proceedings. Pertinently, the star prosecution witness Mr. Mani Bhushan during his cross examination dated 05.01.2024 spilled the beans related to the entire conspiracy of planting 2 kgs of gold in his scooty in order to implicate the petitioner. Similarly, the same star witness was examined by the Income Tax Authority under section 131(1) of the Income Tax Act wherein he narrated the entire chain of events orchestrated by the investigating agency in order to implicate the petitioner on the basis of which the Income Tax Authority passed an order dated 27.03.2024 stating that the 2 KGs of gold recovered from the scooty of the star witness does not belong to the petitioner. On the basis of the documents examined by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 2440/23, it set aside the order of compulsory retirement vide its order dated 30.04.2024 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its order dated 10.12.2024 categorically observed that the present case of the petitioner was case of victimization and not a case to weed out the dead wood. On the basis of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and that of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in its order dated 13.11.2024 passed in Cr.M.P No. 2747/2023, the State of Chhattisgarh closed the entire departmental proceeding vide its order dated 14.01.2025. In the said order dated 14.01.2025 it has been specifically mentioned at paragraph No. 2 that respondent No. 4 has not provided a single document in support of the departmental charge sheet dated 12.08.2021 proposed by it to the Home Department, Chhattisgarh as well as the petitioner, due to which without any proceedings, departmental 6 enquiry was kept pending for about 34 months. Further, from the summary prepared by the Home Department, Chhattisgarh under the signature of the Under Secretary, it is reflected that the entire departmental proceeding proposed by respondent No. 4 was with malafide intention. In the notesheet pertaining to the said order dated 14.01.2025, the instances of malafide are also mentioned by the said Department. Further, at paragraph No. 6 and 7 of note sheet dated 24.12.2024, it has been clearly observed by the respondent No. 3 that the video footage of alleged recovery of 2 kgs of gold on account of the petitioner was deliberately/maliciously suppressed and destroyed by the concerned ofÏcials of respondent No. 4 on the basis of which the Income Tax Authorities passed the order dated 27.03.2024 stating that the alleged 2 kgs of gold does not belong to the petitioner. 6. On the basis of observations as mentioned in the order dated 13.11.2024 passed in Cr.M.P 2747/2023 of this Court, order dated 10.12.2024 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in SLP No. 24779/2024 as well as order dated 14.01.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 with respect to the closure of the departmental proceedings dated 12.08.2021, petitioner made several representations to respondent No. 1 for closure of ECIR/18/HIU/2021 registered under section 3 of PMLA and re-call of notice dated 13.10.2021 and 08.11.2023. However, no heed was paid by the respondent authorities and till date the said ECIR is pending and therefore, petitioner is constrained to move this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the said ECIR dated 09.08.2021 and impugned notice dated 13.10.2021 and 08.11.2023 issued by respondent No 2. 7. On the other hand, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel 7 appearing for the respondent/Enforcement Directorate submits that ECIR is a document meant for identification of a particular case and for departmental convenience and is purely an internal document and as such, the same cannot be quashed. However, Mr. Pande does not dispute the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner, as aforesaid. 8. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State submits that the main contesting party in the present petition is the respondents No. 1 and 2. He also does not dispute the facts stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as above. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials available on record. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that no proceeding under the PMLA can be continued, if the predicate offence is quashed or the accused under the predicate offence gets discahrged. This Court, vide its judgment/order dated 13.11.2024, has quashed the FIR bearing Crime No. 22/22021, registered at PS ACB/EOW and all its consequential proceedings, on the basis of which the impugned ECIR was registered by the Respondent No 1. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India and Ors., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 929 at paragraphs 253 and 467 has held that if the predicate offence is quashed then ECIR and all consequential proceedings under PMLA cannot continue and has to go. The same has been followed in the cases of Pavana Dibbur v. The Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586; Directorate of Enforcement v. Akhilesh Singh & Ors., reported as 2024 : DHC:3399; Emta Coal Limited & Ors. v. The Deputy 8 Director Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023/DHC/000277; and Prakash Industries Limited v Union of India, 2023 SCC Online Del 223. 11. Further, once a person is exonerated in the departmental proceedings then on the same set of facts, criminal proceedings cannot be continued and the same is liable to be quashed. The State of Chhattisgarh closed the entire departmental proceedings vide its order dated 14.01.2025 in which identical and same charges as that of the said criminal proceedings were alleged and made scathing remarks that not a single document was furnished by the prosecuting agency in support of the charges alleged in the departmental charge sheet dated 12.08.2021 proposed by it to the Home Department, Government of chhattisgarh. Further, at para No. 6 and 7 of note sheet dated 24.12.2024 pertaining to the said order (Annexure P/14), instances of malafide on part of the investigating agency have also been pointed by the Home department. In the case of Lokesh Kumar Jain v. the State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 (11) SCC 130, the Supreme Court held that once the person is exonerated in the departmental proceedings then on the same set of facts criminal proceedings cannot be continued and the same is liable to be quashed. It is also to be noted that on the same factual matrix and grounds, copulsory retirement order dated 20.07.2023 was passed by the Department and the same was quashed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2440/23 which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 10703/2024 as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 24779/2024. 12. As the entire criminal proceeding related to the predicate offence was 9 based on malicious investigation, devoid of merit which was quashed by this Court, even though the ECIR in question cannot be quashed being an internal document, the entire proceedings emanating from ECIR/18/HIU/2021 dated 09.08.2021 registered under section 3 of the PMLA including notice dated 13.10.2021 and 08.11.2023 issued to petitioner are quashed. 13.Resultantly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.02.05 15:53:07 +0530