# Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 763
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9232 of 2025
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh, Lakshmi Kant Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satinder-singh-bhasin-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54843
- **Pages:** 50

## Text

_Characters 0–39,928 of 161,001. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39928 for what follows._

12 All. Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
763
entire society and administration.
It is also well settled that the High Court in
appropriate cases can very well under
Section
482CrPC
or
in
any
other
proceeding can always direct the trial
court to expedite the criminal trial and
issue such order as may be necessary. But
the present is a case where proceeding
initiated by Respondent 2 does not appear
to be a bona fide proceeding. Respondent 2
is in no way connected with initiation of
criminal proceeding against the appellant.
Respondent 2 in his application under
Section 482CrPC in para 6 has described
him as a social activist and an advocate.

42. Hence, in view of above, the
locus standi of a stranger to interfere in
criminal proceedings is absolutely limited.
Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that
the petitioner is not a victim as per the
provisions of Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.
Further, the prayer of
transfer of
investigation to the CBI is stale and
technically infructuous as the investigation
has not only started but stands already
completed in both the FIRs and even trial
has
been
commenced
in
the
FIR
No.0015/2021 and all the proceeding of the
FIR No.445/2020 has been stayed by this
Court. Further, the entire case has been
premised on apprehension and no cogent
evidence has been provided on record to
entail any entertainment of such prayer by
this Court. Most significantly, any relief
granted at this stage would amount to
interfering by a stranger to an ensuing trial,
which is not permissible under the
provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure
and specifically barred in view of the
judgment of the Honble Supreme Court.

43. For all the aforesaid reasons,
we are not inclined to pass any order on the
prayers of both the writ petitions, but
liberty is given to the parties, as observed
in the preceding paragraphs, to file
requisite application before the learned
Trial Court at appropriate stage, as per the
provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure
(now BNSS).

44. It is needless to say that if any
appropriate application is filed before the
learned Trial Court, as observed above,
learned Trial Court shall consider and
dispose of those applications without being
influenced from any observation made by
this Court in the present order.

45. With the above observations,
both the writ petitions are disposed of.

46. There shall be no order as to
cost(s).
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 763
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9232 of 2025

Satinder Singh Bhasin ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, in the facts and
circumstances of case, the continuation of
proceedings under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 pursuant to ECIR No.
ECIR/LKZO/14/2021
together
with
the
consequential search and seizure operations and
issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants, is legally
sustainable when the predicate offence against
the petitioner is alleged to have ceased to be a
"scheduled offence" under PMLA, and when the
underlying
criminal
proceedings
stand
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consolidated and stayed and whether such
actions
suffer
from
jurisdictional
infirmity,
violation
of
statutory
safeguards,
and
infringement of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of
Constitution of India.

Headnotes
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
- ss. 2(1)(u), 3, 4, 5, 17, 44, 50 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 21,
226 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 406,
420, 467, 468, 471,120-B - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 41A, 154, 161
- The petitioner approached the High
Court by filing the instant criminal writ
petition challenging the initiation and
continuation
of
proceedings
by
Enforcement
Directorate
under
PMLA,
2002, including the registration of the
ECIR, conduct of search and seizure
proceedings, issuance of open ended nonbailable
warrants,
and
consequential
coercive measures, arising out of alleged
predicate
offences
connected
with
multiple FIRs relating primarily to the
"Grand Venice Project" - The genesis of
the matter lay in numerous FIRs alleging
offences of cheating and allied crimes,
which were subsequently consolidated by
Supreme Court into a single principal FIR
bearing No. 353 of 2015, pursuant to
which supplementary charge-sheets were
filed and certain offences, including s. 420
IPC, were dropped, leaving the petitioner
to face proceedings only u/s 406 IPC -
Parallelly, the petitioner obtained an
interim order thereby staying further
proceedings in the consolidated predicate
criminal case - Despite such stay and
despite the petitioner's contention that no
scheduled
offence
under
the
PMLA
survived against him, the Enforcement
Directorate
proceeded
to
investigate,
issue
summons,
conduct
searches,
provisionally attach properties, and secure
issuance
of
non-bailable
warrants
-
Aggrieved
thereby,
and
after
being
permitted by Supreme Court to withdraw
proceedings under Article 32 with liberty
to approach the High Court, the petitioner
invoked the writ jurisdiction of High Court
and contending that the very jurisdictional
foundation for PMLA action was absent
and that all consequential steps taken by
the Enforcement Directorate were liable to
be interdicted.

Held: ED has failed to discharge its burden of
demonstrating actual evasion by the petitioner -
The chronology of summons and responses
shows regular engagement on behalf of the
petitioner - Most critically, the temporal aspect,
nearly four years of investigation without
completion and no prosecution complaint having
been filed yet, suggests that NBWs are not
being issued in the early stages of a nascent
investigation where an accused is evading
process but rather in a prolonged investigation
where no clear investigative purpose is being
served by further coercive measures - The
petitioner's
statement
u/s
50
PMLA
was
recorded on 12.07.2022 - Since then, over two
and a half years have elapsed - The ED
continues to call for documents and information
- At some point in a protracted investigation, the
investigative agency must move forward to
conclude its inquiry and file a complaint or close
the investigation - Accordingly, the NBWs
issued on 11.04.2025 are hereby cancelled -
The
petitioner
is
directed
to
join
the
investigation and cooperate therein upon prior
written intimation by ED - Having evaluated the
statutory framework of PMLA, the effect of
Supreme Court's consolidation order, the nature
and permissible scope of an ECIR, and judicial
threshold for interference at the stage of
investigation, the Court found that while the
ED's jurisdiction is indeed derivative of and
contingent upon the existence of a scheduled
offence, such jurisdiction cannot be said to have
been extinguished merely by the stay of
proceedings in the predicate FIRs or by clubbing
of FIRs - At the same time, the invocation of
coercive measures, including search, seizure,
and issuance of non-bailable warrants, must
adhere strictly to statutory safeguards and
constitutional limitations - Thus, in view of
terms, the petition is partly allowed. [Paras 188,
190, 193, 196, 197, 200] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 929; Parvathi Kollur v.
State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1975; Pavana
Dibbur v. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1486; Sagar Maruti Suryavanshi v.
12 All. Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
765
Directorate of Enforcement and others, 2024
SCC OnLine Bombay 3348; Inder Mohan
Goswami v. State of Uttarakhand, (2007) 12
SCC 1; Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church
of South India Trust Association, (1992) 3 SCC
1; Surjeet Kumar Bansal v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, 2024 PHHC 045226; Subhash
Popatlal Dave v. Union of India, (2014) 1 SCC
280; State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim
Kaskar,
(2000)
10
SCC
438;
Ottavio
Quattrocchi v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
75 (1998) DLT 97 (DB); N. Dhanraj Kochar v.
Enforcement Directorate, (2022) SCC OnLine
Mad
8794;
Jitendra
Nath
Patnaik
v.
Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar, CRLMC
No. 2891/2023, Order dated 02.09.2023;
Pawan Insaa v. Directorate of Enforcement,
Government of India, Chandigarh Zonal Office,
Chandigarh, CRM-M No. 6378 of 2023,
Order dated 10.04.2024; Wave Hospitality
Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine
Del 8855; Ashok Malik v. Soga Impex Pvt. Ltd.,
2012 SCC OnLine Del 3464; Satender Kumar
Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773; Directorate
of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3
SCC 440; Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. v.
Directorate of Enforcement, W.P. No. 20713
of 2022, decided on 14.12.2022; Vijayraj
Surana v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC
OnLine Mad 8404 - referred to

Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6
SCC 348 - followed

List of Acts
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002;
Constitution of India, 1950; Indian Penal Code,
1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Predicate FIR; Scheduled offences; Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002; ECIR; The
Grand Venice Mall; Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority; Commercial mall;
Open
ended
Non-Bailable
Warrants;
Enforcement Directorate; Proceeds of crime;
Jurisdictional
fact;
Foundation
of
PMLA
proceedings; Search and seizure; Provisional
attachment;
Summons;
Coercive
action;
Criminal proceedings; Stay of proceedings;
Continuation of proceedings; Subsistence of
offence; Quashing; Writ jurisdiction under
Article 226; Abuse of power; Sine qua non;
Statutory
document;
Consequential
proceedings; Exercise of power; Absence of
proceeds of crime; Interference by the High
Court.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. - 9232 of 2025

Connected with other Matter

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15414 of 2025

From Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2025
passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption,
CBI, Ghaziabad in ECIR/LKZO/14/2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Aditya Yadav, Malay Prasad, Saloni Mathur,
Shivam Yadav, Tanya Makker

Advs. for the Respondent:
Pankaj Kumar Shukla, G.A., Manoj Kumar Singh,
Sushant

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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-
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
petitioners
fundamental
right
under
Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution;

 (iv) Declare the respondents
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 themebased commercial mall and an adjoining
commercial tower (hereinafter subject
property).

4. The construction of the Grand
Venice Mall and the commercial tower is
stated to have been completed in the years
20142015, after which the establishments
became operational and housed various
national and international brands.

5. On 09.06.2015, an FIR being
FIR No. 353 of 2015, Police Station -
Kasna, Gautam Buddh Nagar, came to be
registered against the petitioner and others
under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC),
alleging irregularities in relation to the said
project. Subsequently, between 2015 and
2019, a large number of similar FIRs, were
lodged in relation to the same project,
alleging
non-delivery
of
units,
nonpayment of assured returns, non payment of
invoices and delay in possession etc.

6. Upon investigation of the FIR
No. 353/2015, the police submitted a final
report dated 30.11.2016, concluding that
the dispute was essentially civil or
commercial in nature and recommending
closure. A protest petition was filed by the
complainant on 10.03.2017. Thereafter, a
supplementary
charge
sheet
dated
17.02.2019 was filed. In the supplementary
charge-sheet,
Section
420
IPC
was
dropped, and only an allegation under
Section 406 IPC was retained against the
petitioner.

7. On 15.04.2019, the learned Trial
Court
took
cognizance
of
the
supplementary charge-sheet and issued
12 All. Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
767
summons to the petitioner for the offence
under Section 406 IPC.

8. Meanwhile, in view of the
multiplicity of FIRs relating to the subject
project, petitions were filed before the
Honble Supreme Court, culminating in
proceedings in W.P. (Crl.) No. 242/2019.
By interim order dated 06.11.2019, the
Honble
Supreme
Court
noted
that
multiple
FIRs
containing
identical
allegations existed concerning the same
project. Bail was also granted to the
petitioner with a direction to deposit ₹50
Crores to demonstrate bona fides and
facilitate settlements as a pre-condition.
The petitioner complied with the said
condition and was released on bail.

9. Ultimately, by order dated
12.05.2022, in the aforesaid writ petition,
the Honble Supreme Court consolidated
all FIRs (46 as per the record) pertaining to
the Grand Venice project into the
principal FIR No. 353/2015 and directed
that all other charge-sheets and FIRs would
stand merged, and the entire matter would
proceed only from the principal FIR.

10. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner
filed Criminal Misc. Application No.
25724/2022 before this Court, seeking
quashing of the proceedings arising out of
the
principal
FIR.
By
order
dated
27.04.2023 in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 25724/2022, proceedings in Case No.
1559/2019 (arising out of the said principal
FIR) pending before the Court of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II,
Gautam Buddh Nagar were stayed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court.

11. While the proceedings in the
predicate FIR were thus pending, the
Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter
ED), Lucknow Zonal Office, registered
ECIR
No.
ECIR/LKZO/14/2021dated
12.03.2021 under Sections 3/4 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
(hereinafter PMLA), predicated on FIR
No. 353/2015.

12. The first summons by ED was
issued on 29.03.2022, to which the
petitioner submitted a reply on 18.04.2022.
On 12.07.2022, the petitioner physically
appeared before the Investigating Officer,
supplied documents, and his statement
under Section 50 PMLA was recorded. The
ED issued further summons on 14.07.2022,
and the petitioner is stated to have supplied
the documents on the same day through
email.

13. Another set of summons were
issued by ED on 08.05.2024, requiring his
appearance on 14.05.2024. The petitioner
submitted the documents on 16.05.2024
and again on 20.05.2024. Summons were
later issued on 17.02.2025, followed by
further communications on 20.02.2025,
21.02.2025, 22.02.2025, 06.03.2025, and
21.03.2025, to all of which replies or
document production was made either by
the
petitioner
or
his
authorized
representative.

14. On 16.02.2025, the petitioner
was allegedly detained at Police Station
Beta-II, Gautam Buddh Nagar, without an
FIR. On 18.02.2025, he was allegedly
picked up from Connaught Place, New
Delhi, purportedly by Uttar Pradesh Police
personnel without following mandatory
inter-State arrest protocols.

15.
The
petitioner,
therefore,
approached the High Court of Delhi by
filing W.P. (Crl.) No. 598/2025. By orders
dated 1920.02.2025, the High Court of
768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Delhi took serious note of the allegations of
illegal detention and abduction, directed the
production of the petitioner, and ordered an
inquiry by the Commissioner of Police,
Uttar Pradesh.

16. Thereafter, on 09.04.2025, the
ED issued an authorization under Section
17 PMLA for conducting search and
seizure proceedings. On 10.04.2025 at
about 6:45 a.m., ED officials conducted
searches at the petitioners residence and
business premises at Delhi and Noida, and
the search continued at the residence until
12.04.2025. During the said searches, an
amount of ₹36,00,000/- was recovered,
allegedly found in a locker at Goa
belonging to M/s India Ocean World Pvt.
Ltd., a company in which the petitioner
asserts he holds no position either as a
director or a shareholder.

17. On 11.04.2025, the learned
Special
Judge,
Anti-Corruption,
CBI,
Ghaziabad, issued Non-Bailable Warrants
(hereinafter
NBW)
against
the
petitioner in relation to the same ECIR.

18. On 13.04.2025, the petitioner
lodged a complaint at P.S. - Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi, alleging misbehaviour
with his children during the search, and
also
issued
representations
to
senior
officials of the Directorate of Enforcement.

19.
The
petitioner
thereafter
approached the Honble Supreme Court by
filing a writ petition under Article 32
challenging the ECIR, the search proceedings,
the NBW, and all consequential actions. By
order
dated
21.04.2025,
the
Honble
Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to
withdraw the petition with liberty to approach
the High Court of competent jurisdiction.
20. Consequently, the petitioner has
filed the present writ petition, before this Court
challenging the ECIR, the search and seizure
proceedings, the NBWs issued on 11.04.2025,
and all coercive steps taken pursuant to the
ECIR. The bone of the contentions of the
petitioner is that since the predicate offence as
against him survives only under Section 406
IPC, which is not a scheduled offence under
the PMLA, and the trial of the said predicate
offence stands stayed by the order of a learned
Single Judge of this Court dated 27.04.2023,
the ED lacks jurisdiction to continue any
proceedings under the PMLA.

21. On these facts, the petitioner seeks
quashing of the ECIR, quashing of the NBWs,
setting aside of the search and seizure
proceedings, and protection from further
coercive action arising out of the impugned
ECIR.

22. Before proceeding further, for the
sake of convenience, this Court deems it
appropriate to set out that in the present matter,
there are 49 FIRs in total, which are predicate
FIRs (schedule offences), out of which 44
FIRs are arising out of FIR No. 353/2015
principal
FIR
(Grand
Venice
Project
consolidated FIRs) and 5 remaining FIRs are
part of Mist Avenue FIRs. Further, the
Honble
Supreme
Court
consolidated/clubbed 46 FIRs. The ED has
stated that 2 FIRs out of the 46 clubbed FIRs
are not part of the ECIR.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF THE PETITIONER

 A. Submissions relating to the
maintainability
of
the
petition
and
jurisdictional defects

23. Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned
Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
12 All. Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
769
petitioner submits that the very initiation
and continuation of ECIR by the ED is
wholly
without
jurisdiction,
as
the
foundational requirement of a subsisting
scheduled offence under the PMLA is
absent. It is submitted that in FIR
No.353/2015,
which
constitutes
the
predicate offence for the present ECIR, the
allegations under Section 420 IPC were
expressly dropped in the supplementary
charge-sheet dated 17.02.2019, and the
petitioner is now proceeded only under
Section 406 IPC. Section 406 IPC is not a
scheduled offence under the PMLA, and no
other scheduled offence is pending against
him within the meaning of the Schedule to
the PMLA.

24. Learned counsel submits that
after dropping Section 420 IPC, the
continuation of ED proceedings violates the
law
laid
down
in
Vijay
Madanlal
Choudhary v. Union of India1, wherein
the Honble Supreme Court affirmed that
PMLA proceedings can continue only
where a scheduled offence exists or
survives. The petitioner relies on this
principle to assert that if the predicate
offence is non-existent, extinguished, nonscheduled, or stayed, then proceedings
under the PMLA cannot be sustained.

25. Further reliance is placed on
the judgment of the Honble Supreme
Court in Parvathi Kollur v. State2, wherein
the
Honble
Court
reiterated
that
proceedings under the PMLA cannot
survive,
where
the
accused
stands
discharged or acquitted in the predicate
offence or where the predicate offence does
not survive in law. Learned counsel
submits
that
the
learned
Additional
Solicitor General in that case accepted this
proposition unequivocally. The petitioner
submits that the same principle squarely
applies in the present case, because the
only provision now attracted in the
predicate FIR is Section 406 IPC, which is
not a scheduled offence.

26.
The
proceedings
in
the
predicate FIR have been stayed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court in
Criminal
Misc.
Application
No.
25724/2022 vide order dated 27.04.2023. It
is argued that the effect of the stay is that
the predicate proceedings remain in a state
of suspension, and the ED cannot, in the
teeth of such stay, continue to treat the FIR
as alive for the purposes of sustaining the
ECIR

27. Learned Senior Counsel further
relies strongly on Pavana Dibbur v.
Enforcement Directorate3 in support of
the proposition that the existence of a
scheduled offence is the jurisdictional
foundation of PMLA proceedings. Learned
counsel submits that once Section 420 IPC
has been dropped, the entire basis for
registration of the ECIR has ceased, and
ED proceedings must necessarily collapse.

28. The petitioner additionally
relies on the judgment of the Bombay High
Court in Sagar Maruti Suryawanshi v.
Enforcement Directorate4, asserting that
the ED cannot club unrelated transactions
or separate FIRs into a single ECIR. The
petitioner submits that the respondent has
improperly added FIRs pertaining to
unrelated projects such as the Mist
Project
into
the
present
ECIR,
notwithstanding the Honble Supreme
Court order dated 12.05.2022 consolidating
all
Grand
Venice
FIRs
into
FIR
No.353/2015 alone.

29. The petitioner submits that the
Honble Supreme Courts order dated
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12.05.2022 consolidating all Grand Venice
related FIRs into a single FIR makes it
impermissible for the ED to rely upon any
other FIR for purposes of the ECIR. It is
argued that the respondents reliance upon
separate or additional FIRs amounts to a
direct violation of the binding directions of
the Honble Supreme Court.

 B.
Submissions
regarding
issuance
of
Non-Bailable
Warrants
(NBWs)

30. The petitioner submits that the
issuance of open- ended NBWS dated
11.04.2025 by the learned Special Judge is
wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to
settled principles governing issuance of
warrants. It is argued that the issuance of
NBWs in the absence of a prosecution
complaint before the Special Court under
Section 44 PMLA, and without any
cognizance having been taken, renders the
warrants illegal.

31. The petitioner submits that
there is no stage in PMLA investigation
that contemplates issuance of NBWs in aid
of investigation, and the scheme of the Act
nowhere permits such recourse. The
petitioner asserts that the EDs reliance on
precedents relating to police investigations
under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter CrPC) is misconceived,
because those decisions do not apply to
PMLA, which is a complete code with selfcontained procedures.

32. It is submitted that the NBWs
were issued despite the petitioner having
joined investigation on multiple occasions,
having furnished documents as required,
and
despite
the
ED
itself
having
communicated that personal appearance
was not mandatory as reflected in emails
dated 06.03.2025 and again on 21.03.2025,
where
it
was
stated
that
personal
appearance was not required and that only
submission of documents was necessary.

33. The petitioner submits that no
notice under Section 41A CrPC has ever
been issued to him in connection with the
PMLA proceedings. It is further argued that
prior to the issuance of the NBWs, no fresh
summons under Section 50 PMLA had
been issued, and therefore, the NBWs were
issued without adherence to the mandatory
procedure laid down in Inder Mohan
Goswami v. State of Uttarakhand5, where
the Honble Supreme Court cautioned
against mechanical issuance of NBWs
without first issuing summons or bailable
warrants.

34. The petitioner submits that he
has cooperated with the ED investigation
fully, as demonstrated by his appearance on
12.07.2022, submission of documents on
12.07.2022, 14.07.2022, 16.05.2024, and
20.05.2024, and further submission on
22.02.2025 and 21.03.2025. It is stated that
the petitioner has, at no point, evaded the
process of law.

35. The petitioner further submits
that the NBW violates his fundamental
rights under Article 21 of the Constitution,
as it was issued without any default on his
part in complying with investigation
requirements. Learned counsel submits that
the NBWs are in gross violation of natural
justice and the principles laid down for
issuance of coercive process.

36. It is argued that the Special
Court proceeded mechanically and failed to
take into consideration the EDs own
communication acknowledging compliance
by the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that
12 All. Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
771
the Court also failed to examine the EDs
statement in the last summon dated
21.03.2025 that personal appearance was
not required.

C.
Submissions
regarding
compliance with summons and allegations
of non-cooperation

37. The petitioner submits, in
detail, the chronology of compliance with
summons issued by the ED. It is submitted
that the petitioner responded to the first
summon dated 29.03.2022 by submitting a
written reply on 18.04.2022. Thereafter, the
petitioner physically appeared before the
ED on 12.07.2022, where his statement
under Section 50 PMLA was recorded.

38. It is submitted that upon
issuance of the second summons dated
14.07.2022, the petitioner provided the
requisite documents on the same day
through email. The ED acknowledged
receipt. The petitioner received the third
summons
dated
08.05.2024,
requiring
appearance on 14.05.2024. He provided the
required
documents
on
14.05.2024,
16.05.2024, and again on 20.05.2024, as
demanded.

39. With respect to the summons
dated 17.02.2025, the petitioner states that
he could not appear immediately due to his
illegal detention by the Uttar Pradesh
Police on 16.02.2025, a matter that came
before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (Crl.)
No. 598/2025. The petitioner submits that
on 20.02.2025 and 21.02.2025, the ED was
informed about the orders of the Delhi
High Court directing his production.

40. It is further submitted that on
22.02.2025, the petitioner provided all
documents
sought
by
the ED.
The
petitioner contends that in view of this
compliance, the allegation that he was
evading investigation is patently incorrect.

41.
It
is
submitted
that
on
06.03.2025, the ED conveyed by email that
personal appearance was not necessary. On
21.03.2025, the ED again stated that
personal appearance was not required, and
the petitioners authorized representative
appeared and submitted the required
documents before the ED on 26.03.2025.

D. Submissions regarding search
and seizure proceedings

42. The petitioner submits that the
search and seizure operations conducted on
10.04.2025, 11.04.2025, and 12.04.2025
under Section 17 of the PMLA are illegal
and vitiated for complete non-compliance
with the mandatory statutory conditions. It
is urged that the ED neither recorded nor
furnished any valid reason to believe
that the petitioner was in possession of
proceeds of crime or records relating to
such proceeds. The petitioner submits that
the
jurisdictional
prerequisites
under
Section 17(1) are mandatory in nature and
non-negotiable.

43. It is further submitted that no
incriminating material was seized from the
petitioners residence or business premises
during the search operations spanning
nearly three days. It is specifically pointed
out that the only recovery referred to by the
respondent relates to a sum of ₹36,00,000/-
allegedly found in a locker in Goa
belonging to a company, M/s India Ocean
World Pvt. Ltd., with which the petitioner
asserts he has no connection. The petitioner
submits that this recovery has no bearing
upon the petitioner personally and cannot
justify the coercive action.
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
44. The petitioner submits that the
entire manner in which the search was
conducted reflects a mala fide exercise of
coercive powers. The petitioner asserts that
his children were subjected to intimidation
during the search, compelling him to lodge
a complaint with P.S. Rajouri Garden, New
Delhi on 13.04.2025. The petitioner also
addressed a detailed grievance to the senior
officers of the ED on the same day
regarding the misconduct during the search.

45. The petitioner submits that the
ED undertook the search proceedings
despite being fully aware that the Delhi
High Court had taken cognizance of his
illegal detention by the Uttar Pradesh
Police on 16.02.2025 and had ordered an
inquiry. Learned counsel submits that the
ED
attempted
to
use
the
coercive
mechanism of search to create a false basis
for further action, including moving for
NBWs, and that this conduct demonstrates
colorable exercise of authority.

46. The petitioner submits that the
legality of the search must be tested against
the standards laid down in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (Supra) regarding the need for
strict adherence to statutory safeguards. It
is argued that the EDs actions have
violated both statutory and constitutional
protections.

E.
Jurisdictional
illegality
of
clubbing Distinct Transactions in one
ECIR

47. It is submitted that the ED has
acted
wholly
without
jurisdiction
in
attempting to subsume and investigate
entirely distinct transactions and predicate
offences under a single ECIR. An ECIR,
being the equivalent of an F.I.R. under the
PMLA,
must
be
rooted
in
specific
scheduled
offence,
with
the
alleged
proceeds of crime traceable to that very
transaction while it is permissible to
consolidate multiple FIRs, it they emanate
from the same project or scheme, for
instance, multiple complaints in respect of
the same scam or transaction, the law does
not permit amalgamating unrelated projects
or companies into one ECIR. Learned
counsel for strengthening his above-said
submissions relied on the judgment of the
Bombay High Court in Sagar Maruti
Suryavanshi
Vs.
Directorate
of
Enforcement and others6, (Paragraph 4244). It is argued that applying the abovesaid judgment, it is submitted that while
FIR arising from the Grand Venice project
could legitimately to be consolidated into
one ECIR, the EDs attempt to also
include F.I.R. concerning the entirely
different project, as such the Mist project,
involving the separate company, directors,
investors is ex facie permissible. Each
distinct transaction requires its own ECIR
since the schedule offence the set of the
accused, such alleged accused of crime are
transaction specific. It is vehemently
submitted that the artificial or enlargement
of one ECIR to cover multiple transactions
obliterates the jurisdictional foundation of
PMLA confesses distinct streams of alleged
criminality and directly violates the ratio in
Sagar Maruti Suryavanshi (supra), such
overreach is ultra virus the Act, contrary to
binding judicial pronouncement and render
the ECIR effective and liable to be
quashed.

F.
Submissions
regarding
violation
of
supreme
courts
consolidation order

48. The petitioner submits that by
judgment dated 12.05.2022, the Honble
Supreme Court consolidated all FIRs
12 All. Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
773
relating to the Grand Venice project into
FIR No. 353/2015 and held that no parallel
or separate FIRs would survive thereafter.
The
petitioner
emphasises
that
the
Honble Supreme Court expressly directed
that all proceedings would emanate only
from the consolidated FIR.

49. It is submitted that the ED has
unlawfully ignored this binding direction
and has relied upon additional FIRs
concerning unrelated projects such as the
Mist Avenue Project for purposes of
issuing and sustaining the ECIR. The
petitioner contends that this constitutes a
direct violation of the Honble Supreme
Courts order and is impermissible under
Section 44 PMLA and the doctrine of
judicial discipline.

G. Submissions on the absence of
proceeds of crime

50. The ED has failed to identify,
quantify, or demonstrate the existence of
any proceeds of crime attributable to
the petitioner. It is noted that no provisional
attachment order has been passed despite
the ECIR having been registered in 2021.
Learned counsel submits that the absence
of any attachment or identification of
proceeds of crime is compelling evidence
that the ECIR is baseless.

51. The petitioner contends that
the absence of proceeds of crime also
renders the NBWs unjustified because the
ED has been unable to show, even prima
facie, that the petitioner is involved in
money laundering. It is submitted that
Section 5 PMLA, read with explanations
given in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
(Supra), establishes that the concept of
proceeds of crime is central to PMLA
jurisdiction.
H. Submissions regarding illegal
detention and police conduct

52. The petitioner submits that he
was illegally detained by the Uttar Pradesh
Police on 16.02.2025 without an FIR and
was
subsequently
abducted
from
Connaught Place on 18.02.2025. It is stated
that these acts were brought to the notice of
the Delhi High Court in W.P. (Crl.)
598/2025, wherein orders dated 19.02.2025
and 20.02.2025 took serious cognizance of
the matter and ordered an inquiry by the
Commissioner of Police, Uttar Pradesh.

53. The petitioner submits that the
ED attempted to use this period of illegal
detention
to
falsely
allege
that
the
petitioner
was
evading
investigation,
despite the record showing that the
petitioner had appeared and furnished
documents earlier. It is contended that the
EDs allegation of non-cooperation is
tainted by these circumstances.

I. Submissions on violation of
natural justice and Article 21

54. The petitioner submits that the
EDs conduct in seeking NBWs and
undertaking search operations without valid
grounds violates the petitioners right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution. It is argued that the ED
did not consider the petitioners consistent
cooperation, the stay of the predicate FIR,
or
the
Honble
Supreme
Courts
consolidation directions.

55. It is further submitted that the
coercive actions taken by the ED are
arbitrary, disproportionate, and designed to
circumvent
the
judicial
protections
accorded to the petitioner by the Delhi
High Court and this Court.
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
J. Submissions on the petitioner's
cooperation and bona fides

56. The petitioner submits that he
has demonstrated complete bona fides
throughout the investigation process. It is
pointed out that the petitioner had earlier
deposited ₹50 crores before the Honble
Supreme Court during the consolidation
proceedings, in compliance with directions.
The petitioner asserts that there has never
been any attempt on his part to evade the
investigation and that the record of
correspondences,
appearance,
and
document submissions clearly establishes
his cooperation.

SUBMISSIONS ON
BEHALF
OF THE RESPONDENT ED

A. EDs submissions regarding
maintainability and limited interference at
investigation stage

57. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent ED vehemently opposed the
present petition submitting to the effect that
the present petition is not maintainable
because the petitioner seeks to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere
in
an
ongoing
money-laundering
investigation at a premature stage.

58. It is submitted that it is a settled
principle of law that investigation under the
PMLA should not be interrupted unless a
clear case of abuse of power is established,
which, in the EDs submission, is not
present here.

59. The ED submits that the prayer
for quashing the ECIR is, in law,
impermissible.
ED
relies
upon
the
judgment of the Honble Supreme Court
in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra),
contending that the ECIR is an internal
document meant solely for administrative
and investigative purposes and is not to be
equated with an FIR. Only because the
ECIR is not a statutory document and has
no legal impact on the rights of the
accused, it cannot be quashed or set aside
in writ jurisdiction.

60. The ED further submits that the
petitioner has erroneously attempted to use
judicial
review
to
challenge
the
investigative prerogative of the respondent.
It is stated that courts must refrain from
interfering at the stage of evidence
collection or during ongoing investigation,
especially in cases involving economic
offences of serious magnitude.

B. EDs submissions regarding
scheduled offence and effect of stay of
predicate FIR

61. The ED submits that the
petitioners
argument
that
PMLA
proceedings
cannot
continue
because
Section 420 IPC has been dropped or
because the predicate FIR is stayed is
legally untenable. The ED states that a stay
of proceedings does not amount to
quashing of the FIR and does not wipe out
the existence of the allegations.

62. The ED places heavy reliance
on the judgment of the Honble Supreme
Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v.
Church
of
South
India
Trust
Association7, where the Honble Court
held that a stay of proceedings does not
efface the underlying order or proceeding.
ED submits that the petitioner cannot treat
the stay order dated 27.04.2023 as
equivalent to the FIR being quashed or
dismissed.
12 All. Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
775
63. The ED argues that the
principle sought to be invoked by the
petitioner that PMLA proceedings cannot
survive without the predicate offence is
inapplicable here because the predicate FIR
continues to subsist in law. The ED submits
that the petitioner cannot take advantage of
a procedural stay order to defeat the
statutory investigation under the PMLA.

64.