[Cites 27, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Hemant Soren vs Assistant Director on 15 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2036 of 2025
------
Hemant Soren, aged about 48 years, son of Shri Shibu Soren,
Resident of 3, Kanke Road, P.O.-Gonda, P.S.-Gonda, District-Ranchi.
... Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Director, through Deovrat Jha, Directorate of Enforcement
Ranchi Zonal Office, at Plot No.1502/B, Airport Road, P.O. & P.S.-
Hinoo, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834002 ([email protected]).
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arunabh Chaudhary, Sr.Advocate
(through V.C.)
: Mr. Pradeep Chandra, Advocate
: Mr. Deepankar, Advocate
For the O.P. : Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
: Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Varun Girdhari, Advocate
: Mr. Preetam Mandal, Advocate
: Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the
prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the
order dated 04.03.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.3952 of 2024 by
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the
offence punishable under Sections 174 of the Indian Penal Code against
the petitioner and the case on being transferred is now pending in the
Special Court, MP/MLA Cases, Ranchi and consequential reliefs.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant of complaint case
no.3952 of 2024, as an officer of Investigating Agency under the
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, is the
Investigating Officer of ECIR/RNZO/25/2023 and the said ECIR/RNZO
/25/2023 was registered on the basis of the information collected in
connection with Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No.272 of 2023. Bhanu Pratap
Prasad was the named accused person in Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No.272
of 2023 along with unknown accused persons. It was revealed that Bhanu
Pratap Prasad was also an associate of the petitioner. The said Bhanu
Pratap Prasad had hidden the register pertaining to the landed property
admeasuring 8.86 acres approximately, which landed property is in
possession of the petitioner; at his home i.e. the home of Bhanu Pratap
Prasad and other connecting materials were also recovered from the said
Bhanu Pratap Prasad. During the course of investigation of the said
ECIR/RNZO/25/2023, the petitioner was summoned to personally
appears for his statement in regard to all properties acquired/possessed
by him. During the course of the investigation, seven summons were
issued to him which were disobeyed by the petitioner, by citing frivolous
reasons and evading the investigation by colouring the summons to be
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
politically motivated. The details of the summons, the date of appearance
of the petitioner mentioned in each of such summons, the reply received
from the petitioner for his non-appearance, have been mentioned in detail
in para-6 of the complaint. It appears that serial no.1 to 6 are summons
while serial no.7 is a letter issued to the petitioner to provide a convenient
date, time and place for recording his statement. It is alleged that the
petitioner deliberately disregarded the summons providing baseless
pleas. The statement of the petitioner was recorded on 20.01.2024 and then
on 31.01.2024 after making vigorous efforts, the petitioner was finally
arrested on 31.01.2024 after recording his statement under Section 50 of
PMLA Act, 2002. It is further alleged that the petitioner has wilfully and
knowingly disobeyed the summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA
Act, 2002. It was also alleged that the petitioner who was summoned, was
bound to attend in person in terms of Section 50(4) of PMLA Act, 2002.
Section 63(4) of PMLA Act, 2002 envisages that a person who
intentionally disobeys the direction issued under Section 50 of PMLA Act,
2002 is liable to be proceeded against under Section 174 of the Indian
Penal Code. It is further alleged that the petitioner is hampering the
investigation of a serious offence of money laundering, involving
proceeds of crime worth rupees several hundred crores and despite being
a public servant, the petitioner has chosen to remain non-cooperative and
reluctant to join investigation being conducted.
4. On the basis of the complaint, materials and documents annexed
thereto, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
case in respect of the offence punishable under Section 174 of the Indian
Penal Code and passed the summoning order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is fixed on
17.01.2026 for consideration of explaining the substance of accusation to
the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Magistrate in a mechanical manner has taken cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code and proceeded
under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C.. It is next submitted that the petitioner is
innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case without any basis.
It is next submitted that the petitioner is the working president of a
registered political party and formed the government in the State of
Jharkhand and the petitioner has been serving as the Chief Minister of
State of Jharkhand since December, 2019 till his resignation on 29.01.2024.
It is next submitted that the petitioner has replied to every summons with
sincerity and prior to the summons involved in the complaint case
no.3952 of 2024, the opposite party sought to wrongfully implicate the
petitioner in a purported stone chips mining scam in the State of
Jharkhand and to that end, summons was served upon the petitioner,
requiring him to attend at the office of opposite party on 03.11.2022. The
opposite party is fully aware of all the assets and properties owned and
possessed by the petitioner, but still the opposite party again issued
summons to the petitioner on 07.08.2023 to attend his office on 14.08.2023
for recording of his statement in respect of properties owned, possessed
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
and occupied by him and sources of acquisition of the properties under
the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner vide letter dated 14.08.2023
undertook to provide any information/documents which may bonafide
be required and called upon the opposite party to withdraw the
summons. The opposite party again issued summons dated 18.08.2023 to
the petitioner for the self-same purpose, for which the summon dated
07.08.2023 was issued. The opposite party again issued letter dated
29.12.2023 and it was further informed to the petitioner that despite
issuance of six summons, the petitioner has failed to appear hindering the
progress of the investigation in the present case. It is then submitted that
purpose for which an officer of Enforcement Directorate has been
empowered to summon any person, is either to give evidence or to
produce the document. It is next submitted that the said purpose has
already been fulfilled prior to filing of the present case, which is obtained
from the perusal of the complaint petition itself. It is next submitted that
the petitioner has duly responded every summons issued by the opposite
party and has neither ignored nor wilfully disobeyed any summons. It is
lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant
Cr.M.P and submits that the present petition is a dilatory tactic aimed at
stalling the proceedings in MP/MLA Case No.02 of 2024 and this petition
is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as though the cognizance
order was passed on 04.03.2024, this petition was presented more than
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
one year, thereafter, on 11.04.2025. It is next submitted that inherent
jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
great caution. It is then submitted that the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ranchi by the well-reasoned order dated 04.03.2024, after
application of judicial mind has taken cognizance of the said offences. It is
next submitted that since the prima facie case is made out disclosing the
ingredients of the offence, there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire
criminal proceeding. It is next submitted that the petitioner is attempting
to convert the High Court into a trial court to examine the defence of the
petitioner that there were valid reasons for his non-appearance which is
procedurally improper. It is next submitted that at this stage, the
Magistrate's satisfaction regarding sufficient grounds for proceeding, is
conclusive and at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 of the
Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate is primarily concerned with the allegations
made in the complaint.
8. In this respect, the learned counsel for the opposite party relies
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi reported
in (2009) 2 SCC 147, paragraph-23 of which reads as under:-
"23. It is a settled legal position that at the stage of
issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the
allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in
support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied
whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against
the accused."
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
9. In this respect, the learned counsel for the opposite party next relies
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prokash Chandra Bose reported in (1964) 1 SCR
639, paragraph-8 of which reads as under:-
"8. Coming to the second ground, we have no
hesitation in holding that the test propounded by the learned
single judge of the High Court is wholly wrong. For
determining the question whether any process is to be issued
or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there
is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is
sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is
adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only
at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. A number of
decisions were cited at the bar in which the question of the
scope of the enquiry under S.202 has been considered.
Amongst those decisions are: Paranand Brahmachari v.
Emperor, AIR 1930 Pat 30; Radha Kishan Sao v. S. K. Misra,
AIR 1949 Pat 36; Ramkisto Sahu v. State of Bihar, AIR 1952
Pat 125; Emperor v. J.A. Pinan, AIR 1931 Bom 524 and
Baidya Nath Singh v. Musppatt, ILR 14 Cal 141. In all these
cases, it has been held that the object of the provisions of S.
202 is enable the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether
process should be issued or not and to remove from his mind
any hesitation that he may have felt upon the mere perusal of
the complaint and the consideration of the complainant s
evidence on oath. The courts have also pointed out in these
cases that what the Magistrate has to see is whether there is
evidence in support of the allegations of the complainant and
not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction.
The learned -Judges in some of these cases have been at pains
to observe that an enquiry under S. 202 is not to be likened to
a trial which can only take place after process is issued, and
that there can be only one trial. No doubt, as stated in sub-sec.
(1) of S. 202 itself, the object of the enquiry is to ascertain the
truth or falsehood of the complaint, but the Magistrate making
the enquiry has to do this only with reference to the intrinsic
quality of the statements made before him at the enquiry
which would naturally mean the complaint itself, the
statement on oath made by the complaint and the statements
made before him by persons examined at the instance of the
complainant." (Emphasis supplied)
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
10. Learned counsel for the opposite party next relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu
Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta reported in (2015) 3 SCC 424, paragraph-8 & 9
of which reads as under:-
"8. Having considered the details of allegations
made in the complaint petition, the statement of the
complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on
which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by
the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our
considered opinion, committed no error in summoning the
accused persons. At the stage of cognizance and summoning
the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with
a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to
find out whether prima facie case has been made out for
summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned
Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or
materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the
merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because
the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at
this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not.
9. It is also well settled that cognizance is taken of
the offence and not the offender. Hence at the stage of framing
of charge an individual accused may seek discharge if he or she
can show that the materials are absolutely insufficient for
framing of the charge against that particular accused. But
such exercise is required only at a later stage, as indicated
above and not at the stage of taking cognizance and
summoning the accused on the basis of prima facie case. Even
at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials
for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a
prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the court finds that
the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. It
is also a settled proposition of law that even when there are
materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the
court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and
in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on
record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case
of both the sides may be considered appropriately on
conclusion of trial." (Emphasis supplied)
11. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submits that the
Magistrate is required to apply its judicial mind only with a view to take
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
cognizance of the offence and at this stage, the Magistrate is not required
to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is
required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence of the
complainant
12. Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that
distinction between 'sufficient ground for proceeding' and 'sufficient
ground for conviction', has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Shivjee Singh vs. Nagendra Tiwary reported in (2010)
7 SCC 578, paragraph-18 of which reads as under:-
"18. The expression "sufficient ground" used in
Sections 203, 204 and 209 means the satisfaction that a prima
facie case is made out against the person accused of
committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the
purpose of conviction. This interpretation of the provisions
contained in Chapters XV and XVI CrPC finds adequate
support from the judgments of this Court in Ramgopal
Ganpatrai Ruia v. State of Bombay [AIR 1958 SC 97 : 1958
Cri LJ 244 : 1958 SCR 618] , Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya
Dulaji Ghadigaonkar [AIR 1960 SC 1113 : 1960 Cri LJ 1499 :
(1961) 1 SCR 1] , Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash
ChandraBose [AIR 1963 SC 1430 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 397 :
(1964) 1 SCR 639] , Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B.
[(1973) 3 SCC 753 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 521] , Kewal Krishan v.
Suraj Bhan [1980 Supp SCC 499 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 438] ,
Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh [(1992) 2 SCC 213 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 361] and Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon
International Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 492 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
471]"
13. Learned counsel for the opposite party next relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep
Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another in Criminal
Appeal No.3831 of 2025 and submits that the petitioner fails to meet the
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
strict judicial standards for quashing established by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India which is known as four step tests.
Step-1. Whether the material relied upon by the
accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e. the material
is of sterling and impeccable quality.
Step-2. Whether the material relied upon by the
accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges
levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to
reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the
complaint i.e. the material is such, as would persuade a
reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of
the accusations as false.
Step-3. Whether the material relied upon by the
accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant;
and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably
refuted.
Step-4. Whether proceeding with the trial would result
in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the
ends of justice.
14. Learned counsel for the opposite party next relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt.
Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Others reported in
(1976) 3 SCC 736 and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in
that case, has held that once the Magistrate possesses undoubted
discretion in the matter of taking cognizance, exercises the same
judicially, it is not open for the High Court or even the Supreme Court to
substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the
case on merits with a view to find out whether the allegations, if proved,
would ultimately end in conviction.
15. Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that the
mandate of law is that a person summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA
Act is bound to appear in person and tell the truth. In this respect, the
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
learned counsel for the opposite party relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 and
submits that in response to the submissions made by the petitioner that
the petitioner has replied every summons, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the opposite party that merely replying to the summons does
not mean he complied the summons.
16. Learned counsel for the opposite party next relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay
Mallya vs. Enforcement Directorate reported in (2015) 8 SCC 799,
paragraph-13 of which reads as under:-
"13. From the tenor of the letter, it appears that it
was not a case of merely seeking accommodation by the
appellant but requiring a date to be fixed by his convenience.
Such stand by a person facing allegation of serious nature
could hardly be appreciated. Obviously, the enormous money
power makes him believe that the State should adjust its
affairs to suit his commercial convenience." (Emphasis
supplied)
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has deprecated the
conduct of the accused person summoned in that case requiring the
Enforcement Directorate to fix a date as per his convenience.
17. Learned counsel for the opposite party further relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhisekh
Banerjee vs. Enforcement Directorate reported in (2024) 9 SCC 22 and
submits that therein it has been held that the persons who have been
summoned are bound to appear and state the truth upon any subject in
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
respect of which they are examined and in case of wilful disobedience, the
person may be proceeded against under Section 174 of the Indian Penal
Code, paragraph-31 of which reads as under:-
"31. In that view of the matter, we do not find any
substance in the challenge made by the appellants to the
summons issued to the appellants under Section 50 PMLA.
As contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 50, all the
persons summoned are bound to attend in person or through
authorised agents as the officer may direct and are bound to
state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are
examined or make statements, and to produce the documents
as may be required. As per sub-section (4) thereof every
proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) is deemed to be a
judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 and
Section 228IPC. As per sub-section (4) of Section 63, a person
who intentionally disobeys any direction issued under Section
50 is liable to be proceeded against under Section 174IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submits that the
petitioner's non-appearance on each of the dates in respect of 7 summons
which have been detailed in para-6 of the complaint was a distinct and
complete offence under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code and the
replies for non-appearance of the petitioner in response to the summons
on the ground of political conspiracy or produce a truth do not constitute
a lawful excuse.
19. Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that the
petitioner's contention that summons were illegal or that he had valid
reasons to ignore the same is completely demolished by judicial record of
his own previous petitions as the petitioner's first attempt to bypass the
jurisdictional High Court by filing writ petition (Crl.) No.378 of 2023
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging the validity of the
summons were not accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide
order dated 18.09.2023 and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to approach the High Court, though, pursuant to the said liberty,
the petitioner filed W.P.(Cr.) No.787 of 2023 before this High Court and
raised exact the same ground, he is indirectly raising now the ground that
the summons are bad in law and there is no predicate offence alleged
against him and the provisions of PMLA Act are draconian. But the
division bench of this Court vide the detailed order dated 13.10.2023
categorically rejected the contentions relying upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the provisions
under which summons were issued are valid and constitutional. It is next
submitted that even after dismissal of the petition by the High Court, the
Enforcement Directorate further issued further statutory summons
specifically the summons at serial no.6 dated 10.12.2023 and the
summons/letter no.7 dated 29.12.2023, yet the petitioner continued to
evade appearance of both of hearings, thus, the offence punishable under
Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code was complete. It is then submitted
that Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not carve out any
exception for persons holding high public office. On the contrary, the Rule
of Law mandates that the law applies equally to all, regardless of their
political stature. It is next submitted that the petitioner's detailed recital of
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
his political career is an attempt to create prejudice against the statutory
functioning of the Directorate of Enforcement.
20. Learned counsel for the opposite party next relying upon the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Directorate of Enforcement vs. State of Tamil Nadu [SLP (Crl) No.1959
of 2024] dated 27.02.2024, submits that the Apex Court has categorically
held in that case, that a person to whom summons are issued under
Section 50(2) of the PMLA is obliged to respect and respond to the said
summons. It is next submitted that the petitioner is attempting to create a
false narrative of cooperation on his part with the Directorate of
Enforcement, by mixing two separate and distinct investigations
conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement. It is next submitted that the
offence punishable under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code is
complete, the moment the summoned person intentionally omits to attend
at the place and time specified in the summons. It is next submitted that
the purpose of summons is timely investigation, hence, by delaying his
appearance for over five months, the petitioner successfully stalled the
investigation, allowed time for potential tampering with evidence or
influencing of witnesses and frustrated the immediate collection of facts,
therefore, the eventual recording of his statement, which happened as a
result of the Directorate's persistence; cannot be termed as a petitioner's
sincerity. It is next submitted that the petitioner has bypassed the remedy
of filing a criminal revision. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P.,
being without any merit, be dismissed.
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
21. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is
pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the High
Court in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, which corresponds to section 528 of the BNSS, cannot conduct
a mini trial, as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors.
reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as
under:-
"Having gone through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it
appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini
trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while
deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed
and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial
can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power
under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of
deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High
Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the
particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)
22. It is also a settled principle of law, as has been observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harjinder Singh vs. State
of Punjab and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029 wherein
the settled principle of law that the defence of the accused person of a case
cannot be considered before prosecution adduces evidence has been
reiterated in paragraph-11 of the said judgment which reads as under:-
11.xxx The primary argument of Respondent no. 2
rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a
defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused.
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt,
OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until
that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of
paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert
the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the
Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is
allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the documents
will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the
prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06 : 30 a.m.;
the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from 12 : 09 p.m. The
confrontation is alleged at 08 : 30 a.m. A road journey from
Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private
vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening
window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an
offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build-
up of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction,
and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it
occurs. (Emphasis supplied)
23. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains
that the competent authority under the PMLA issued six summons and
the seventh is in shape of a letter to the petitioner and all the summons
were received by the petitioner. The petitioner did not appear before the
authority concerned, though, undisputedly he was legally bound to
attend in person before the concerned officer. The only contention of the
petitioner is that the petitioner has justifiable reasons for not appearing
before the officer concerned and that the petitioner has sent reply to each
of the summons, but the fact remains that the petitioner did not appear.
The other contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner after the first
summons was issued to him, approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, admittedly, there was no such order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India exempting the petitioner from appearance in
response to the summons nor any interim order was passed by the
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India only
granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the High Court, but the
perusal of the complaint reveals that in para-6 of the complaint in serial
no.4 of the summons, it has been informed by the petitioner that as per
the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(Cr.) No.378
of 2023, he filed a petition which has been registered as filing no.25476 of
2023, but as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
during the hearing of this case; that there was no such direction of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, though, the petitioner challenged
summons up to the summon no.4 by filing a writ petition before this
Court inter alia making prayer therein to declare under Section 50 & 63 of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to be ultra vires to the
Constitution, but the vires of the same sections having been already tested
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the same were found to be
intra vires in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India
(supra), the Division Bench of this Court was not inclined to dwell into
that and the Division Bench also did not interfere with the summons
issued as the same have become infructuous because of efflux of time.
24. Under such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that he
was justified by not appearing before the competent officer before whom
he was supposed to appear as mentioned in the summons is a question of
fact, for determination of which evidence is required to be adduced and
admittedly the prosecution has not yet adduced its evidence before the
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
trial court as the substance of accusation has not yet been explained to the
petitioner.
25. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus Aryan Singh etc. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, para 11 of
which reads as under :-
" 11. One another reason pointed by the High Court is
that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is
malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the
investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the
directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on
conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been
chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in
observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal
proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal
proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be
considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered
at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is
required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material
collected during the course of the investigation, which
warranted the accused to be tried." (Emphasis supplied)
that whether a criminal proceeding was malicious or not, is not
required to be considered in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C which corresponds to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and the
same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial.
26. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
in view of the materials available in the record, as already discussed in
detail in foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, this is not a case where
the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. is to be acceded
to in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 at this
stage.
( 2026:JHHC:1073 )
27. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit is dismissed.
28. In view of the dismissal of this Cr.M.P., the interlocutory
application no.15938 of 2025 is disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 15th of January, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 22/01/2026
