Disposed¶28

Mahender Kumar Khandelwal v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Feb 2025W.P.(CRL)/1342/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mahender Kumar Khandelwal v. Union of India, W.P.(CRL) 1342/2020, CRL.M.A. 11823/2020, Delhi High Court, Neena Bansal Krishna J., 17.02.2025; Article 226 writ with Section 482 CrPC; summons dated 19.08.2020/22.08.2020 under Section 50 PMLA in ECIR/DLZO/I/02/2019 dated 25.04.2019; ED search and seizure 19-20.08.2020 at Gurgaon and Dwarka residences; Articles 14 and 21; coercive action; infructuous prayers; separate writ WP(C) No. 10993/2023; disposed of for non-prosecution and infructuous; pending applications disposed; no precedent engaged; petitioner unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; all prayers held infructuous and the writ petition disposed of for non-prosecution and as infructuous, with pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶28

Mahender Kumar Khandelwal Vs Union of India & Ors. — Money Laundering | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; all prayers held infructuous and the writ petition disposed of for non-prosecution and as infructuous, with pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Summons dated 19.08.2020 and 22.08.2020 issued by Respondent Nos. 2/3 to the Petitioner in relation to ECIR/DLZO/I/02/2019 dated 25.04.2019 should be quashed along with all consequential proceedings qua the Petitioner. +2 more

¶20

Court's answer

The prayer to quash the summons dated 19.08.2020 and 22.08.2020 has become infructuous: the two dates have already gone and the summons, issued under Section 50 of the PMLA, have become infructuous.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The prayer challenging the search and seizure proceedings of 19.08.2020/20.08.2020 at Gurgaon and Dwarka has become infructuous, as the search and seizure had been challenged by way of separate Writ Petition WP(C) No. 10993/2023.

¶22

Key takeaways

The interim prayer directing that no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner has also become infructuous, being contingent on the first two prayers which have themselves become infructuous.ratio¶23
Since the prayers as made have become infructuous, as rightly stated on behalf of the respondents, and none appeared for the Petitioner, the Petition is disposed of for non-prosecution and being infructuous, with pending applications, if any, also disposed of.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Neena Bansal Krishna, J.), Order dated 17.02.2025 in W.P.(CRL) 1342/2020, Mahender Kumar Khandelwal v. Union of India & Ors.: The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC sought (i) quashing of Summons dated 19.08.2020 and 22.08.2020 issued under Section 50 PMLA by Respondent Nos. 2/3 in ECIR/DLZO/I/02/2019 dated 25.04.2019; (ii) quashing of search and seizure proceedings of 19-20.08.2020 at the Petitioner's Gurgaon and Dwarka residences as violative of Articles 14 and 21; and (iii) restraint on coercive action. The Court noted none appeared for the Petitioner; the challenged summons dates had lapsed and the summons had become infructuous; the search-and-seizure challenge was pending in separate Writ Petition WP(C) No. 10993/2023; and the interim anti-coercion prayer fell away with the other two. All prayers being infructuous, the Petition was disposed of for non-prosecution and being infructuous; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. No precedents cited; no substantive adjudication of legality.

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 1342/2020, CRL.M.A. 11823/2020 (stay)

¶4

MAHENDER KUMAR KHANDELWAL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: None

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel with Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Speical Counsel, ED with Mr.Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel ED with Mr. Suradhish Vats, Mr. Chinmaye and Mr. Kunal Kochar, Advocates for ED.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 17.02.2025

¶12

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Mahender Kumar Khandelwal with the following prayers:-

¶13

A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Summons dated 19.08.2020 and 22.08.2020 issued by the Respondent No. 2/3 to the Petitioner herein in relation to ECIR/DLZO/I/02/2019 dated 25.04.2019 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom qua the Petitioner herein; and

¶14

B. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the entire search and seizure proceedings conducted by the Respondent ED on

¶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 20/02/2025 at 12:16:36

¶17

19.08.2020/ 20.08.2020 at the Gurgaon as well as Dwarka residence of the Petitioner herein to be illegal and quashing all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom qua the Petitioner as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution; and

¶18

C. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondent No. 2/ 3 to not take any coercive action against the Petitioner herein in ECIR/DLZO/I/02/2019 dated 25.04.2019; and

¶19

D. Pass such other or further order(s) or directions (s) as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶20

The first prayer was to quash the Summons dated 19.08.2020 and 22.08.2020, issued by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the Petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondents has stated that these two dates have already gone and the summons dated 19.08.2020 and 22.08.2020 had been issued under Section 50 of the PMLA and they have become infructuous.

¶22

The second prayer was in respect of the challenging the search and seizure proceedings conducted by the Respondent No. 2/Directorate of Enforcement on 19.08.2020/20.08.2020 at Gurgaon, as well as, Dwarka residence of the Petitioner. However, the search and seizure had been challenged by way of a separate Writ Petition bearing WP(C) No. 10993/2023 and therefore, the same has also become infructuous.

¶23

Insofar as, not to take coercive action is concerned, that is only an interim Order when the first two Orders have become infructuous, the interim prayer also become infructuous.

¶24

Submissions heard and the record perused.

¶25

None has appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 20/02/2025 at 12:16:36

¶28

The prayers as made, have become infructuous, as rightly stated on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly the Petition is disposed of for nonprosecution and being infructuous. Pending Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶29

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶30

FEBRUARY 17, 2025/RS

¶31

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 20/02/2025 at 12:16:36

Mahender Kumar Khandelwal v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahender Kumar Khandelwal v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Malik & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Abhishek Sharma Vs State & Anr.

Arun Bhati @ Annu Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Hargovind Billore & Anr. Vs the State, Govt. of NCT & Anr.

Ram Naresh & Anr. Vs Gnct Delhi

Irshad Ahmed Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Vijay Sehrawat Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Mohammad Mufizuddin Vs the State (Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi) & Ors.

Jitender Kumar Garg Vs Gurmeet Singh & Ors.

Ashok Vs the State through SHO P S Sarai Rohilla (Govt of N C T Delhi)

Viraj @Vishal @Virat Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Dr. R.K. Jain Vs the State NCT

Gautam Saluja Vs Jitender Kumar Sethi & Anr.