j-k-high-court-quashes-ed-charge-sheet-against-farooq

The J&K High Court on Wednesday quashed charge sheets filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against former Chief Minister Dr Farooq Abdullah and others for alleged money laundering linked to irregularities in the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA).

 

Justice Sanjeev Kumar ruled that no predicate offence was made against petitioner Ihsan Mirza, the then treasurer of JKCA, quashing the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet filed by the ED.

 

 "The complaint, the charge sheet, and the charges framed by the designated Special Court (Principal Sessions Court, Srinagar) are quashed," Justice

Kumar concluded.

 

The ED had named Abdullah, Mirza, Mir Manzoor Gazanffer (another ex-treasurer of the JKCA), and others as accused. Advocate Shariq J Reyaz, representing Mirza and Gazanffer, argued that the ED had no jurisdiction over the case.

 

"We were representing Mirza and Gazanffer, and the court accepted our plea that no predicate offense was made out and that the ED had no jurisdiction over the case,” defence advocate informed. 

 

Mirza had sought quashing of the ED's complaint and an order dated March 18, 2020, by the Designated Special Court against him. 

 

Justice Kumar noted that while the ED can register a fresh ECIR and launch prosecution if the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, frames charges for offenses under the PMLA, the current case did not meet these criteria.

 

The court said, "The authorities under PMLA cannot resort to action against any person for money laundering only on the assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime unless the same is registered with jurisdictional police or pending enquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum."

 

The CBI had previously registered an FIR against Mirza and others under Sections 120-B, 406, and 409 RPC, but these are not scheduled offenses under PMLA. 

 

Additional Solicitor General of India, SV Raju, contended that the CBI charge sheet suggested elements of scheduled offenses under Sections 411 and 424 RPC, which could justify prosecution under PMLA. 

 

However, Justice Kumar noted that no case for scheduled offenses was registered or under inquiry or trial.

 

The court left it open for the ED to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate to argue for charges under the PMLA if any scheduled offenses are later identified.