Neeraj Mittal Vs Directorate of Enforcement Represented by Assistant Director (Jharkhand High Court)
Section 44 PMLA Trial Stay Rejected as No Final Discharge in Predicate Offence: Jharkhand HC
The petitioner filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking quashing of the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Ranchi, which had rejected the petitioner’s request to keep the PMLA proceedings in ECIR Case No. 2/2023 in abeyance until framing of charge or discharge in FIR No. 13/2019 and FIR No. 22/2023.
The background of the case was that FIR No. 13/2019 was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jamshedpur, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Following investigation, the Directorate of Enforcement registered ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020. During investigation, searches were conducted, supplementary prosecution complaints were filed, and the petitioner was arrested on 23.06.2023 and later arrayed as Accused No. 7 in the first supplementary prosecution complaint.
The petitioner contended that the existence of proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence is a sine qua non for proceedings under the PMLA. Relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, Senthil Balaji v. State, and Parvathi Kollur v. Directorate of Enforcement, it was argued that proceedings under the PMLA depend upon the predicate offence and that the PMLA trial should remain in abeyance until the scheduled offences progressed to framing of charge or discharge. The petitioner also submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the Enforcement Directorate by such postponement, whereas continuation of the PMLA proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner.
