HC dismisses Congress MP’s son’s plea against ED arrest – The Week

New Delhi, Sep 8 (PTI) – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and arrest of the son of a Haryana Congress MLA by the ED, citing 10 Supreme Court judgments on the issues.
On August 27, the court of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu in Chandigarh observed that the complainant Sikandar Singh Chokker was prima facie “clearly accused of money laundering” and that his plea was “nothing but a complete abuse of judicial process and the law”.
Sikandar Chokker is the son of Dharam Singh Chokker, a Congress MP from Samalkha constituency (Panipat district) in Haryana. Dharam Singh Chokker was recently given a ticket by his party to contest from the same constituency in the upcoming assembly elections in the state.
Sikandar Chokker was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on April 30 from a hotel in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by a special PMLA court in a money laundering case related to the alleged misappropriation of homebuyers’ funds by a company (Mahira Group) of which he is the “beneficial owner”.
He (Sikandar) initially appeared before the ED for questioning but later failed to testify despite repeated summons and a non-bailable arrest warrant issued by a special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in Gurugram on the request of the ED.
Similar arrest warrants have been issued against Dharam Singh Chokker and his other son Vikas Chokker, who are co-accused in this case.
Dharam Singh Chokker also testified before the ED once, but after a Special Permission Application (SLP) filed by him in that case was rejected by the Supreme Court, he went into hiding.
Sikandar Chokker filed a petition before the Supreme Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the warrant issued against him by the court, his arrest and the remand in ED ordered by the court, essentially alleging that the ‘grounds for arrest’ and ‘grounds for belief’ were not communicated to him at the right time, in blatant violation of Section 19 of the PMLA.
“There is no doubt that the object and purpose of Section 482 of the Penal Code (CrPC) is to achieve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them. … In the present case, huge proceeds of crime have been identified and prima facie the plaintiff is clearly accused of money laundering.
“The plaintiff is the beneficial owner of Mahira Group of Companies and other shell companies and is alleged to be involved in money laundering. Therefore, the present application is nothing but a complete misuse of the judicial and legal system,” the Supreme Court said.
It states that around 1,500 prospective home buyers had invested their hard-earned money in the hope of getting a home, but the entire amount of Rs 363 crore was “misappropriated and laundered” by the complainant (Sikandar) in collusion with other co-accused.
However, the court stressed that these comments were “not” to be understood as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case, but were limited to this petition.
The Supreme Court dismissed Sikandar Chokker’s petition after discussing as many as 10 Supreme Court judgments issuing arrest warrants, apart from arrests by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in money laundering cases, including that of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
Citing the Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin case which lays down the guidelines for issuance and execution of an NBW, the Supreme Court said, “In executing the warrant with the help of local police, the provisions (Section 78 and 79 of CrPC) were scrupulously followed in this case.”
In the context of Pankaj Bansal and Kejriwal case, where it was held that the arrested person must be informed of the reasons for arrest and the reasons for believing the person guilty of the offence must be recorded, the Supreme Court order said that these two directions had been “duly complied with” in this case.
In Pranav Gupta’s case, the court observed that ED officials cannot restrict the accused’s liberty while serving summons. The Supreme Court said Sikandar Chokker was arrested on warrants issued by a special court against which no bail could be granted.
The order also pointed out that Sikandar Chokker tried to escape in April on the pretext of urinating while being brought to the ED’s Gurugram district headquarters from Uttarakhand.
It said that this incident, along with the fact that four other FIRs were lodged against him, showed that the complainant had “no respect” for the rule of law and that he had made a “mockery” of the legal process.
It stated that between February 22 and March 13 last year, Sikandar Chokker “used” funds from home buyers to book rooms in a five-star hotel in Delhi for a family wedding.
The HC said that the provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA were complied with in this case “in letter and spirit”.