Allowed

Rama Luthra v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Delhi HC13 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/2948/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed two writ petitions challenging provisional attachment orders and impugned orders. The court quashed proceedings as they lapsed due to statutory time limits and also due to the acquittal of all accused in the predicate offence by the Special Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; provisional attachment orders and all consequential proceedings quashed as they lapsed or were dependent on a quashed predicate offence.

Rama Luthra Vs Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement — Money Laundering | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~86 & 87

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 9457/2021 & CM APPL. 8208/2024 RAMA LUTHRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ms. Gauri Rishi, Ms. Srishti Juneja and Ms. Sugandh Kocchar, Advocates. versus

¶4

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Ms. Sara Jain and Mr. Antik Majumder, Advocates.

¶5

W.P.(C) 2948/2023 & CM APPL. 8317/2024 RAMA LUTHRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ms. Gauri Rishi, Ms. Srishti Juneja and Ms. Sugandh Kocchar, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Ms. Sara Jain and Mr. Antik Majumder, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶10

O R D E R % 13.02.2024

¶11

W.P.(C) 9457/2021 has been filed with the following prayers;

¶12

“A. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of

¶13

W.P.(C) 9457/2021 etc.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 16:44:16

¶17

Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction quashing declaring that the Provisional Attachment Order No.1/2021 dated 22.01.2021 and Provisional Attachment Order No. 2/2021 dated 08.02.2021 in ECIR/02/CDZO/2015 and all proceedings emanating therefrom including Original Complaint No. 1407/2021 and Original Complaint No.1408/2021 before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority have lapsed and ceased to have any effect on and from the expiry of 180 days period provided under Section 5 (1) read with Section 5 (3) of Prevention Money Laundering Act, 2002 i.e., 21.07.2021 and 07.08.2021 respectively; and

¶18

B. Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice”

¶19

W.P.(C) 2948/2023 has been filed with the following prayers:

¶20

a) Issue an appropriate Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby quashing the two Impugned Orders dated 28.12.2021 (in OC No.1407/2021) and dated 06.09.2021 (in OC No.1408/2021) respectively passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirming thereby the attachment of her personal properties; and / or

¶21

b) Pass any other orders that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶22

It is the case of the Petitioner that all the accused persons of the predicate offence have been acquitted vide Order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Ld. Special Judge, (PC Act), CBI in CRC No. 21/2019; ECIR/02/CDZO/2015, CNR No. DLCT11-001334-2019.

¶23

The Apex Court vide Order dated 22.01.2024 passed in Criminal

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

W.P.(C) 9457/2021 etc.

¶26

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 16:44:16

¶27

Appeal No.382/2024 has held that since the predicate offence has been quashed, the prosecution under the PMLA cannot survive. The said Order dated 22.01.2024 reads as under:

¶28

“Delay condoned.

¶29

Leave granted.

¶30

It is not in dispute that the predicate offence has resulted in acquittal of all the accused. Hence, the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PMLA Act”) cannot survive. Accordingly, Criminal Complaint No. 21 of 2019; ECIR/02/CDZO/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside only on that ground.

¶31

It is obvious that all consequential orders passed on the footing that the provisions of the PMLA Act are applicable also stand set aside.

¶32

Needless to add that in the event, the order of acquittal is set aside, the respondent can always apply for revival of the complaint and all other proceedings.

¶33

The appeal is accordingly allowed.”

¶34

In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶35

Needless to state that in case the acquittal is set aside in an appeal, if any, filed by the CBI, the Respondents can always apply for revival of the complaint and all other proceedings.

¶36

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶37

FEBRUARY 13, 2024 S. Zakir

¶38

Page 3 of 3

¶39

W.P.(C) 9457/2021 etc.

¶40

Rama Luthra v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Luthra v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oswal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gaurav Verma Vs National Informatics Centre & Anr.

Cipla Limited Vs National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority & Anr.

Ajay Shukla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Aditya Lal Vallath Vs National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences & Anr.

Ms Jeewan Lata Sud Vs Union of India & Anr.

Mitsubishi Electric India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 16(1), Delhi & Ors.

Salim Kujur and Ors. Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Anr.

Johnson and Johnson Private Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Apresh Garg Vs Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) through Its Authorized Officer & Ors.

Umesh Kumar Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Jitender Kumar Vs the Lieutenant Governor and Anr.

Prem Nath Arora Vs Union of India and Anr.

Maj. Shubhra Verma Vs Union of India & Ors.