'Remained Uncooperative': Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Ex-MLA Dharam Singh Chokker's Plea Challenging ED Arrest In PMLA Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition filed by former Haryana MLA Dharam Singh Chokker, who had challenged his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

It is alleged that the Company owned by Chokker and his family, Mahira Infratech Pvt Ltd had collected Rs 363 crore from homebuyers for the construction of 1,500 flats to be delivered in 2021-2022. The company accounts, funds were allegedly siphoned off as advance loan to other firms as well as diverted for personal use and purchase of several properties. As per ED Chhoker is the director of the firms of Mahira Infratech Pvt Ltd.

Chokker had challenged his arrest and remand orders passed by the Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Gurugram under PMLA in May, 2025.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya noted, "He remained non-cooperative throughout and none of the six NBWs could be executed. Besides, the ED is on record stating that he is accused of concealing true nature of the proceeds of crime and using the same for personal and family members' expenses, apart from siphoning off the proceeds in the form of loans and by acquiring properties. To unearth this money trail custodial interrogation was required, and this Court has no reason to disbelieve the same at this stage."

Senior counsel appearing for Chokker VIikram Chaudhri contended that he was manhandled and assaulted at the time of arrest; secondly, the arrest was not in execution of the warrants issued by the Special Judge, since the petitioner was not shown a copy of the warrants; and, thirdly, mandatory requirements under Section 19 PMLA were not complied with at the time of his arrest.

The Court opined that these contentions are misconceived and stand rejected accordingly.

"The allegations regarding the petitioner's manhandling and assault cannot be believed to be true merely on the basis of averments and documents in the petition, as facts in that regard are disputed," it added.

Counter allegations made by the ED represented by Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel and to the effect that the moment arresting officer introduced himself to the petitioner, showed him a soft copy of the warrants on mobile phone asking him to accompany peacefully, he tried to flee from the spot and sprinted out of the hotel bar. It was with great difficulty that he could be apprehended at the hotel gate with the help of other officers and staff.

It was also alleged that during this entire episode, the petitioner tried to resist the arrest and assaulted the officers who were performing their official duties.

The bench said, "the version and counter-version regarding the alleged assault is a matter of trial as FIRs have been lodged by both the sides against each other, and facts are still to be established."

Showing Soft Copy Of Arrest Warrant Suffice Section 75 CrPC

The bench said, so far as not showing the NBWs to the petitioner is concerned, it is an admitted fact that he was shown a soft copy of the warrants on mobile phone by the arresting officer.

"The requirements under Section 75 Cr.P.C. is that 'the police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall notify the substance thereof to the person to be arrested, and, if so required, shall show him the warrant.' Concededly, the petitioner was shown a soft copy of the warrants, which means substance thereof was notified to him by the officer," it added.

Justice Dahiya noted that it is not the petitioner's case that he ever asked the officer to show him a hard copy of the warrants. Accordingly, there is no violation of procedure in execution of NBWs issued against him by the Special Judge, and the arrest cannot be said to be vitiated on that account.

The Court further said, while exercising jurisdiction to examine validity of arrest the Court is to see whether 'reasons to believe' are based upon material in possession which establishes, in the opinion of the designated officer, that the arrestee is guilty of an offence under the PMLA.

"The adequacy or sufficiency of material is not to be reviewed, nor the officer's subjective satisfaction. Also, since evidentiary value of the material is a matter of trial, the Court is only to examine whether the decision to arrest is rational, fair and as per law," it noted.

In the instant case, however, it could not be pointed out that the material based upon which the 'reasons to believe' have been recorded by the ED are invalid and do not justify the petitioner's arrest, or are based upon material which is prima facie inadmissible in evidence and resultantly the decision to arrest cannot be termed rational and as per law, the Court added.

Because Some Reasons Recorded Are Same As Co-Accused Cannot Invalidate Arrest

The Court opined that merely because some of the reasons recorded are the same as recorded for the co-accused, is no ground in itself to declare them inadmissible or invalid, especially when the petitioner and the co-accused, who are his sons, are accused of illegalities with respect to funds of a company which is controlled by all of them.

"Therefore, it cannot be said that provisions of Section 19 PMLA have not been followed," it added.

In the light of the above, the plea was rejected.

Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents/ED.

Title: DHARAM SINGH CHHOKER v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND OTHERS

Click here to read/download the order