Punjab & Haryana High Court Puts In 'Abeyance' Stay On PMLA Case Against M3M Director Till July 30

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has put Trial Court's stay on proceeding in Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) case against M3M Company director Roop Bansal and other accused in abeyance.

According to Enforcement Directorate (ED) Roop Bansal and 51 others were involved in money laundering and committed offence under Section 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act. The Trial of the case is pending before the Special Court Panchkula.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul while adjourning the matter to July 30, said "Meanwhile, operation of impugned order shall remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing."

Special Counsel for the petitioner-ED  Zohaib Hussain along with Senior Panel Counsel for Union Lokesh Narang submitted that the Special Judge, PMLA, Panchkula, has erroneously stayed proceedings in prosecution Complaint  solely on the ground that FIR (FIR No.14 dated 12.03.2024) registered by EOW, Delhi, being a scheduled offence, is still under investigation and no chargesheet has been filed therein.

It was contended by the Special Counsel that the Trial Court acted beyond its jurisdiction under the PMLA and the CrPC, as neither statute provides for the power to stay criminal proceedings, nor is there any equivalent to Section 151 of the CPC to permit inherent powers or such relief. It was asserted that the impugned order is, therefore, dehors the statutory scheme.

Hussain further submitted that explanation (i) to Section 44 of PMLA clearly authorises continuation of prosecution for money laundering irrespective of the status of the scheduled offence, and the trial court failed to consider its own earlier order, which allowed incorporation of FIR No.14 of 2024 into the prosecution complaint under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C

"Out of 32 predicate FIRs, FIR No.14 dated 12.03.2024 registered by EOW, Delhi, remains under active investigation and has neither been quashed nor stayed thereby rendering the finding of the trial court that the investigation was still underway as patently erroneous and contrary to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India : (2022) 10 SCC 60, which mandates that the proceedings under the PMLA can be impacted only upon discharge, acquittal, or quashing of the scheduled offence—none of which have occurred qua the FIR in question," he added.

Reliance was also placed on S. Martin Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Crl.) No.12353/2024] wherein the Apex Court permitted continuation of trials under PMLA alongside pending predicate offence proceedings, subject only to a bar on pronouncement of judgement, thus affirming that concurrent trial is both legal and appropriate.

Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Special Counsel (through VC) and Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Counsel, GOI for the petitioner.

Mr. Siddharth Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Manmeet Singh Nagpal, Advocate and Mr. Gulshan Sachdev, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT V/S ROOP KUMAR BANSAL AND OTHERS

 Click here to read/download the order