Recently, the Delhi High Court held that mere non-compliance with summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate cannot, by itself, justify the issuance of non-bailable warrants, while setting aside coercive process initiated against UK-based entrepreneur Sachin Dev Duggal. Emphasising procedural discipline, the Court cautioned that investigative urgency cannot override the statutory safeguards embedded in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner in a money laundering probe linked to the Videocon group bank fraud. The Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR based on a CBI case alleging large-scale diversion of bank funds running into over Rs. 61,000 crore. During the course of the investigation, the agency issued multiple summons to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, seeking his presence to explain financial dealings between Videocon entities and companies associated with him. Although the petitioner shared documents through electronic communication and cited his overseas residence in the United Kingdom, he did not appear in person. Thereafter, the ED approached the Delhi PMLA court seeking “open-ended” non-bailable warrants to compel his appearance, which led to the present challenge.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that he was never arrayed as an accused and was consistently treated as a witness or, at most, a suspect during the investigation. It was argued that Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows issuance of non-bailable warrants only against escaped convicts, proclaimed offenders, or persons accused of non-bailable offences who are evading arrest, conditions absent in the present case. The Petitioner further submitted that the summons were not served in accordance with the prescribed MLAT procedure and that alleged non-attendance could, at best, attract action under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, not coercive arrest warrants.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent submitted that the Petitioner’s repeated failure to appear had stalled the investigation, thereby warranting coercive measures. It was argued that a person summoned under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act occupies a distinct legal position, neither strictly an accused nor a witness, and that courts are empowered to issue non-bailable warrants in aid of investigation where non-cooperation is evident. The Respondent further contended that the Petitioner was aware of the summons through electronic communication and had selectively engaged with the process, disentitling him to any discretionary relief.
Observation of the Court:
Undertaking a detailed examination of Chapter VI of the CrPC, Justice Amit Sharma underscored that Section 73 of the CrPC is not a carte blanche for investigative agencies and operates within clearly defined statutory boundaries. The Court noted that the ED’s own pleadings did not describe Duggal as an “accused” at any stage, a distinction it found legally decisive. Clarifying the scope of coercive process, the Court observed: “Non-bailable warrants can be issued only against a person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest; mere non-compliance with summons does not satisfy this threshold.” The Court also rejected the notion that investigative convenience could dilute procedural safeguards, stressing that summons and warrants serve distinct legal purposes and must not be conflated. Importantly, it held that where the law provides specific remedies for non-attendance to summons, those mechanisms must be exhausted before invoking arrest-oriented processes
The Court drew a clear statutory boundary around the power to issue non-bailable warrants, holding that non-compliance with summons alone cannot justify the coercive arrest process. Interpreting Section 73 of the CrPC, the Court emphasised that such warrants are permissible only in narrowly defined circumstances and cannot be invoked as an investigative tool of first resort. The Court observed that “Non-bailable warrants can be issued only against a person who is a convict or a proclaimed offender or a person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.”
Addressing the Enforcement Directorate’s argument that non-appearance stalled the investigation, the Court clarified that investigative inconvenience cannot dilute statutory safeguards, noting that “It is no doubt true that non-bailable warrants can be issued against the person who is evading investigation and who may not be formally arrayed as accused in the prosecution complaint, however, such persons must be projected as a person accused of committing non-bailable offence and evading arrest for the purpose of Section 73 of the CrPC.”
The Court further emphasised that where the law provides specific remedies for non-attendance to summons, those mechanisms must be followed, implicitly rejecting the use of arrest warrants as a substitute for procedural compliance.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court set aside the non-bailable warrants issued against Sachin Dev Duggal, holding that the Special Court had acted beyond the confines of Section 73 of the CrPC. The Court reaffirmed that non-bailable warrants cannot be used as an investigative shortcut and that coercive criminal process must strictly conform to statutory preconditions, particularly where personal liberty is at stake.
Case Title: Sachin Dev Duggal v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 4362/2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Mohit Mathur, Advs. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Sulakshan S. Vedartham, Khushboo Jain, Chetan Nagpal
Advocate for the Respondent: Special Counsel (ED) Zoheb Hossain, Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani, Advs. Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi, Daanish Abbasi, Mahesh Gupta, Navin Kumar, Ashish Kapoor
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
