ED Summons Can't Be Quashed Merely Because Documents Required For Confrontation Or Probe Not Specified In It: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that the summons issued by Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot be quashed merely because relevant documents required for investigation or confrontation with an accused have not been specified in them.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said the summoning, in exercise of statutory powers, cannot be stalled merely on mere apprehension that the accused may be arrested and prosecuted on basis of summons issued after registration of ECIR in the proceedings initiated by ED.

The court made the observations while denying interim relief to Talib Hassan Darvesh, accused in a money laundering case. He sought stay on the summons issued to him by ED and to restrain the probe agency from taking any further coercive steps against him.

ED opposed the plea on the ground that Darvesh cannot be insulated from any coercive action at the initial stage itself and no protective orders could be passed in his favour, ignoring the mandate of Section 45 of PMLA.

It was also submitted that proceedings initiated by ED were an independent investigation into money laundering allegations based upon the ECIR and the benefit could not be granted merely on account of orders granting anticipatory bail to Darvesh in FIR registered by CBI.

“The summons issued by ED cannot be quashed merely because the relevant documents required for purpose of investigation or confrontation to the petitioner, have not been specified in the summons,” the court said while denying the relief.

It added that since ECIR is an internal document created before initiation of prosecution against persons involved with process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, it is not necessary to reveal the evidence collected by ED at this stage in the summons forwarded to Darvesh.

“Petitioner is yet to be absolved of scheduled offence by way of discharge, acquittal or quashing and as such protection orders cannot be issued in favour of petitioner ignoring the mandate under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 for grant of bail,” the court said.

It added: “Further the summoning in exercise of statutory powers cannot be stalled merely on mere apprehension that petitioner may be arrested and prosecuted on basis of summons issued after registration of ECIR, in proceedings initiated by ED. In the facts and circumstances, no grounds for interim relief are made out at this stage.”

As the court disposed of interim application, it listed Darvesh's plea seeking quashing of the ECIR and summons for hearing on May 07.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Mr. Udhav Sinha, Mr. Amar Gahlot, Ms. Srishty Jaura, Mr. Nalin Bajaj, Ms. Purvi Garg and Mr. Prashant Singh, Advs

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for E.D. with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal and Mr. Abhigiya, Advs

Title: MR TALIB HASSAN DARVESH v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 304

Click Here To Read Order