Delhi High Court - Orders
M.S. Ppk Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 21 June, 2021
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~23 & 24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1129/2021
M.S. PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIO PVT. LTD. & ANR...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Mr. Hitesh Rai, Ms.
Aakashi Lodha, Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri, Mr. Sukrit
Seth, Mr. Seshadri Kale, Mr. Karsh Srivastava
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ravi Singh, Mr. Amit Mahajan,
CGSC
24
+ W.P.(CRL) 1130/2021
M/S PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIO PVT. LTD.
..... Petitioner
Through
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 21.06.2021 CRL.M.A. 9399/2021 -(Application to file lengthy List of Dates and Synopsis) For the reasons stated above, application is allowed.CRL.M.A. 9400/2021 -
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:26.06.2021 20:28:04(for Exemption) For reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed subject to the petitioner filing the duly notarised affidavits within 72 hours from the date of reopening.
CRL.M.A. 9401/2021 -(for Exemption) This is an application seeking exemption from filing Enforcement Case Information Report bearing ECIR/14/HIU/2020.
Since the applicant is seeking supply of the ECIR and the same is not in his possession, the application is allowed. The Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 1129/2021 The W.P (CRL) 1129/2021 has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondents to supply a copy of the ECIR bearing no. ECIR/14/HIU/2020 dated 02.09.2020 registered under Section 3 & 4 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case of the Petitioners is that in February 2021, several search and seizure operations were carried out by Respondent No. 2 under Section 17(1), Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) at the office and residence of the Petitioners 1 and 2. During these search and seizure operation, the Petitioners were informed that an ECIR has been registered by the Respondent No. 2 for commission of offence under PMLA, pursuant to which these searches were carried out. The Respondent No. 2 has been continuing its investigation for over 4 months and as and when officials of the Petitioner No. 1 company and the Petitioner No. 2 himself have been summoned, they have rendered full cooperation and joined the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:26.06.2021 20:28:04 investigation from time to time.
The case of the Petitioners is that the Petitioners have not been supplied the copy of the ECIR, despite requests, and the same is violative of the right of the Petitioners under Article 21of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners further state that Respondent No. 2 is bound to supply the copy of the ECIR within the statutory framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is further submitted that the Respondent No. 2 has been providing ECIRs in some cases as per their pick-and-choose policy.
Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for Respondents, states that there is no concept of an ECIR under the PMLA, 2002. He further submits that the Petitioner is seeking to circumvent the provisions of 438 of the Cr.P.C. and the only remedy available to the Petitioner is to file an application for a grant of Anticipatory Bail in case he is apprehending arrest.
I have heard the learned counsels for the Parties. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court on an order dated 07.01.2016 passed in Virbhadra Singh V. Enforcement Directorate and ors, W.P.(Crl.) No.3107/2015, wherein the Petitioner had sought specific directions against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide the copy of the ECIR. The said order allows the said prayer of the Petitioner and records handing over the copy of the ECIR by the ED.
The attention of this Court is further drawn to Paragraph 85.1 & 85.4 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal vs State (Nct Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:26.06.2021 20:28:04 Of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 wherein it has been observed as follows:
85.1. As held in Sibbia, when a person apprehends arrest and approaches a court for anticipatory bail, his apprehension (of arrest), has to be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable a specific offence or particular of offences. Applications for anticipatory bail should contain clear and essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends his or her arrest, as well as his version of the facts.
These are important for the court which considering the application, to extent and reasonableness of the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not a necessary condition that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.
85.4 Courts ought to be generally guided by the considerations such nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while assessing whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refusing it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether, and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
Issue Notice. Mr. Mahajan appears and seeks and is granted 2 weeks to file the Reply. Relying on the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal case, it is directed that till the next date of hearing no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioners. Renotify on 05.07.2021 before the Roster Bench.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:26.06.2021 20:28:04W.P.(CRL) 1130/2021:
This is a petition seeking the quashing of FIR 116/20 dated 26.08.2020 registered by EOW u/s 406/420/120-B of the IPC. The Petitioner alleges that no offence u/s 406 and 420 is made out on a bare perusal of the FIR. Issue notice. Mr. Ravi Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 accepts notice. Let notice be issued to respondent no. 2. Let counter- affidavit be issued in 4 weeks and rejoinder be filed within 2 weeks. CRL.M.A. 9408/2021 -(for Exemption) Exemption allowed.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 9409/2021 -( Application to file lengthy List of Dates and Synopsis) For the reasons stated above, application is allowed.
CRL.M.A. 9410/2021 -(for Exemption) For reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed subject to the petitioner filing the duly notarised affidavits within 72 hours from the date of reopening.
List both the petition on 29.7.2021 JASMEET SINGH, J JUNE 21, 2021/dm Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:26.06.2021 20:28:04 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:26.06.2021 20:28:04