Will have to start quashing PMLA cases like false Section 498A cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday likened frivolous money laundering cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to false cases of cruelty to wife under Section 498A Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Anil Tuteja and anr v Union of India and ors].

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih remarked in lighter vein that it would have to start quashing money laundering cases like quashing false Section 498A cases

The Court said it might even to have record observations on the conduct of Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers in such cases.

"On a lighter vein, do you know how do we approach quashing petitions in cruelty cases. We have observed that this provision is misused and we quash. If the Act like PMLA is being implemented in such a manner, then this would be approach of the court. Judges are also humans, they are speaking everyday of how PMLA is being used," Justice Oka remarked.

The observations came while hearing a plea by retired IAS Officer Anil Tuteja challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal to quash cases of cheating, forgery, bribery and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and money laundering case registered by the ED.

On August 20, 2024, the High Court had refused to quash the cases lodged in connection with the Chhattisgarh Liquor Policy scam.

Tuteja was granted anticipatory bail in 2020, and the top court had on September 10 issued notice in the instant plea.

During today's hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appeared for the ED, and Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the accused.

The Bench at the outset took exception to the ED's conduct in the matter regarding how the accused was summoned.

"Please see how ED acted. You summoned to him to appear at 12 noon. Those summons were actually served after 12 noon. Those persons were at ACB office and in that office only you summon them to appear in ED office at 5:30 PM. How can you do this? Why should ED officers accompany these persons from ACB to ED office? Why they are accompanying and what was the hurry? This is not the way to arrest a person," Justice Oka said.

It questioned the hurry in issuance of summons during the pendency of the ACB probe.

"And you are interrogating him for whole night. This is unpardonable. Who was the authority which issued these summons? We are going to take your officers at task. This is what they are doing. How are they summoning people like this? We want this person who has issued summons to be present in court."

The ASG then informed that the official in question had resigned.

"Your officers are doing this. There is something like Article 21. We want to know a lot of questions, 1) time of summons issued 2) why summons were given to him in ACB office, if you know that he was in ACB office why issued summons? 3) who issued the second summons 4) what was the hurry in issuing summons I am very sure that there is something in this case", Justice Oka asserted.

The Bench said it expects a better affidavit from the ED, else it would have to made adverse observations about the conduct of the central agency's officers.

"We have indicated our prima facie view to ASG and he has been granted time to file additional affidavit. List on November 5 at 3 PM for final disposal," the Court ordered.

Notably, the Supreme Court had in April quashed a money-laundering case against Tuteja and others in connection with the liquor policy scam case.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan had said in that matter that there was no predicate offence and hence, money laundering case under PMLA could not have been registered by the ED.