Punjab-Haryana High Court
Angad Singh Makkar vs Union Of India And Others on 1 February, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
117 CRM-M-5228-2024
Date of Decision: 01.02.2024
Angad Singh Makkar ...Pe oner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Keshavam Chaudhri, Advocate and
Mr. Rajiv Anand, Advocate for the pe oner.
Mr. Jagjot Singh Lalli, Deputy Solicitor General of India with
Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Counsel and
Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for the respondents-ED.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
1. The pe oner, who claims to be a partner in M/s Mubarikpur Royalty
Company Limited (MRC) has come up before this Court under Sec on 482 Cr.P.C with
certain prayers clause, which reads as follows:
"A. Issue appropriate order(s) or direc on(s) to ensure that none
of the respondents either the State of Haryana or the Enforcement
Directorate violate the spirit and sanc ty of the proceedings
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.
7382/2023 emana ng from and arising out of the final Judgment
dated 18.11.2022 (ANNEXURE P-9) passed by the Na onal Green
Tribunal in O.A. No. 150/2021 pertaining to the same alleged
transac ons/ques ons which have formed the basis of impugned
proceedings launched by the police as well as the Enforcement
Directorate:
B. Direct and ensure that:-
i. The officers of Respondent No. 6 Enforcement
Directorate must remain within the circumscribed limits as
mandated under Sub- Sec on (2) of Sec on 66 of the Preven on of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 and "share the informa on with the
concerned agency for necessary ac on" in the event of forming
opinion "on the basis of informa on or material in his possession
that the provisions of any other law for the me being in force are
contravened" and nothing beyond;
ii. Prohibit and restrain Respondent No. 6 (Enforcement
Directorate) from promp ng. compelling, forcing any authority to
lodge criminal case(s) against any person or en ty as
contemplated under Sec on 2(1)(s) of the Preven on of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 as any such act would tantamount to
blatant illegality, arbitrariness and thus uncons tu onal.
1 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
C. Quash and set aside the communica on F. No.
ECIR/GNZO/19/2023/5405 dated 15.1.2024 (received in Police
Sta on Pratap Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar on 17.1.2024),
whereby, the Respondent No. 6 Joint Director, Enforcement
Directorate has virtually compelled, forced and dictated the
Respondent No. 3 Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar to
register a case under the provisions as men oned therein,
including Sec ons 120-B and 420 IPC as such communica on in
the garb of "sharing of informa on" under Sec on 66(2) of the Act
is beyond the powers, competence and jurisdic on Enforcement
Directorate officials; of Respondent.
D. As a sequel and consequence to the aforemen oned
prayers (supra), set aside and quash FIR No. 0021 dated 19.1.2024
registered under Sec ons 21(1) of Mines And Minerals (Regula on
of Development) Act, 1957, Sec ons 15 & 16 of Environment
Protec on Act, 1986 as well as Sec ons 120-B & 420 of IPC at
Police Sta on Pratap Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar (ANNEXURE
P-16) by Respondent No. 4 merely as a mouthpiece; post- office
and rubber stamp authority for the Enforcement Directorate
without any independent preliminary inquiry or verifica on of
fac s as to the nature of offences especially Sec ons 420 and 120-
B IPC rendering such an FIR to be an anathema to lane, viola ve of
the basic postulates on which the criminal jurisprudence is
premised and a gross as well as blatant abuse of the process of
law.
E. Quash and set aside all proceedings emana ng from the said
FIR No. 0021 dated 19.1.2024 in view of the seJled legal
proposi on that if an ini al ac on is not in consonance with law,
all subsequent and consequen al proceedings will fall through for
the reasons that illegali es strikes at the root of such proceedings
(vide Cons tu on Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in "State of Punjab vs Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC");
F. Quash and set aside any inquiry/inves ga on arising out of and
emana ng from ECER/GNZO/19/2023/5384 dated 13.1.2024
including the summons issued against the pe oner in terms of
Sec on 50 of the Act as well as any penal or coercive ac on qua
the pe oner in connec on therewith as the very basis of the said
Schedule/Predicate offence is non-est; illegal; uncons tu onal and
therefore, null and void ab ini o.
2. To ascertain whether the case is worth issuing no ce, I have heard Mr. Vikram
Chaudhri, Senior Counsel for the pe oner, at length, and also go through the bulky
pe on and briefly the counsel represen ng the Enforcement Directorate, and its
analysis would lead to the following outcome.
3. Respondent No.7-Enforcement Directorate has registered ECIR/GNZO/19/2023
based on the predicate offences, which reads as under:
S. No. FIR Schedule Offence
1. 0226 dt. 14.10.2022 Sec ons 120-B & 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. 0116 dt. 23.03.2023 Sec ons 120-B, 411, 420 of Indian Penal Code,
3. 0111 dt. 01.06.2023 Sec ons 420, 467 & 471 of Indian Penal Code,
2 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
4. 0206 dt. 19.09.2022 Sec on 420 of Indian Penal Code
5. 0216 dt. 30.09.2022 Sec on 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
6. 0204 dt. 14.09.2022 Sec ons 120-B & 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
7. 0033 dt. 10.02.2023 Sec ons 420, 467 & 471 of Indian Penal Code,
8. 0054 dt. 16.02.2023 Sec ons 420, 467 & 471 of Indian Penal Code,
4. As per the pe on and the arguments addressed, the pe oner's case is that on
19.5.2015, the pe oner claims to form a firm, M/s Mubarikpur Royalty Company, set
up with a partner(s). On 19.6.2015, a LeGer of Intent [LOI] was issued to the pe oner's
firm by the Department of Mines & Geology, Haryana, w.r.t. mining of boulder, sand &
gravel at Village Bailgarh, South Block YNR/ B2, District Yamunanagar, Haryana for
conduc ng mining for nine years. Under the Mines & Minerals (Development &
Regula on) Act, 1957 [MMDR] & Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking,
Transporta on of Minerals & Preven on of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012 ('Haryana Rules
2012') framed thereunder. On 27.6.2016, the State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority, Haryana, issued an Environmental Clearance to the said firm. (This
environmental clearance for specific categories of projects is required in terms of the
No fica on S.O. 1533(E) dated 14.9.2006 issued by the Central Government under
Sec on 3(1) & 3(2)(v) of the Environment Protec on Act, 1986 as subsequently
amended in certain aspects by No fica on S.O. 3840(E) dated 30.8.2023.) [Annexure P-
1]. On 31.8.2016, the pe oner's firm got the consent to operate granted to the said
firm by the Haryana State Pollu on Control Board. (Procedure for obtaining consent to
establish & operate under Water Act, 1974 & Air Act, 1981 read with rules thereunder)
[Annexure P-2]. On 12.7.2021, an applica on moved by one Anish before the Na onal
Green Tribunal ('NGT') against the alleged viola on of environmental norms by certain
mining operators, a Joint CommiGee comprising SEIAA Haryana (State Environment
Impact Assessment Authority), CPCB (Central Pollu on Control Board), State PCB (State
Pollu on Control Board) & District Magistrate, Yamunanagar was cons tuted by an ex-
parte order. (No no ce was issued to the pe oner's firm). Vide Annexure P-6, in 2021,
a Joint CommiGee submiGed its report before the NGT, recording that the said firm
neither carried out any illegal mining nor was mining carried out at the edge of River
Yamuna. On 8.3.2022, the report was summarily rejected by NGT by another ex-parte
order & a Second Monitoring CommiGee was asked to carry out onsite inspec ons &
prepare a report. On 7.5.2022, the Monitoring CommiGee submiGed its factual report
alleging that the pe oner's firm violated the mining norms.[P6]. On 14.7.2022, the
Director General, Mines & Geology, Haryana, terminated the mining lease of the firm &
3 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
took possession of the mining area in ques on from it. The firm has since preferred an
Appeal against this termina on, pending before the Appropriate Authority.[P7]. On
19.7.2022, NGT took on record the report of the Monitoring CommiGee, issued no ce &
asked the firm to file a reply. Vide order dated 18.11.2022 [P-9], the NGT imposed a
penalty on the pe oner's firm. On 13.2.2023, Hon'ble SC in Civil Appeal preferred by
the firm has been pleased to issue no ce & pass the condi onal stay order. The maGer
is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court - the next date of hearing is 12.4.2024.
[P10].
5. AOer that, the FIRs were registered in the District of Yamuna Nagar against
several accused persons, including Dilbagh Singh. Based on the predicate offenses in the
said FIRs as Scheduled/Predicate offenses, the Enforcement Directorate [ED] registered
ECIR/GNZO/19/2023.
6. On 4.1.2024, ED searched the premises of M/s Mubarikpur Royalty Company and
the pe oner's residence & seized certain documents & registers maintained by the
firm. [P11 & P-12]
7. Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Ld. Sr. Advocate submits that on 15.1.2024, respondent
No. 7 Joint Director ED sent a communica on to the Superintendent of Police [SP],
Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, to register an FIR for specific offences as desired by the ED,
including Mines & Mineral (Regula on of Development) Act, 1957, Environment
Protec on Act 1986 & Sec ons 420/120-B IPC. Specifically, the pe oner & his firm
were both directed to be arraigned as accused.
8. Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Ld. Sr. Advocate submits that on 19.1.2024, merely as a
rubber stamp, post office & mouthpiece, the police proceeded to register a case
mechanically - FIR 21 dated 19.1.2024 u/s 21(1) Of Mines & Minerals (Regula on of
Development) Act, 1957, Sec on 15 & 16 of Environment Protec on Act, 1986 & Sec on
120-B & 420 of IPC at P.S. Pratap Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, [P15], wherein
pe oner has been arraigned as an accused/suspect No. 5.
9. Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, has referred to the following details of
known/suspected/unknown accused with full par culars:
Sr. No. Name Allias Rela ve's Permanent Address
Name
5. Angad Unknown, Pratap
Singh Nagar, Yamuna
Makkar Nagar, Haryana, India
Subject- Sharing of informa on under Sec on 66(2) of the
Preven on of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in respect of M/s. Delhi
Royalty Company, M/s. Mubarikpur Royalty Company and M/s.
Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd, M/s. JSM Foods Pvt. Ltd.,
M/s. PS Buildtech-Reg. 1. NGT order in Original Applica on No.
150/2021 dated 18.11.2022 in respect of M/s. Delhi Royalty
4 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
Company, M/s. Mubarikpur Royalty Company and M/s.
Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Ref. 2. NGT order in
Original Applica on No. 423/2022 dated 31.05. 2022 in respect of
M/s. JSM Foods Pvt. Ltd., M/s. PS Buildtech. Please refer to the
above....
6. During the inves ga on, it has been revealed that above firms
and related persons have violated environmental norms (such as
in-stream mining using heavy machinery during the odd hours,
diversion of the flow of River Yamuna by laying of layer of sand in
the lease area to extract the more quan ty of sand from the lease
areas etc.) their involvement in illegal and unscien fic mining. It
has also been revealed that these en es/persons have issued
fake e-rawanas or not issued e rawanas for transporta on, done
mining despite clear ban by Hon'ble NGT, mined beyond
permissible limits, not followed rules/regula ons prescribed by the
Environment (Protect) Acts related regula ons. Such proceeds
earned out of illegal unscien fic mining has been routed through
various dummy en es in fic ous names, deposi ng huge cash in
those en es and layering of such money into their personal bank
accounts related companies/en es etc. Related persons/en es
are involved in money laundering and are in possession of
proceeds of crime or records/ property related to money
laundering.
7. In view of the above, it is clear that en es namely M/s. Delhi
Royalty Company, M/s. Mubarikpur Royalty Company, M/s.
Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd, JSM foods Pvt. Ltd and PS
Buildtech and persons namely Dilbag Singh, Rajinder Singh,
Kulwinder Singh (PS Buildtech), Manoj Kumar Wadhwa, Angad
Singh Makkar, Gurpartap Singh Mann, Raman Ojha, Rajesh
Chikara, Inderpal Singh, Naseeb Singh, Nirmal Roy, Mukesh
Bansal, Ranbir Singh Rana, in connivance with others were
involved in rampant illegal and unscien fic mining in the mines
alloJed to them, viola ng Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regula on) Act, damage to the environment in contraven on to
Sec ons 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of the Environment Protec on Act, 1986
and provisions of Sec on 120-B, 420 of IPC, 1860...."
10. Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Ld. Sr. Advocate argued that the ED officer himself
becomes the complainant in the FIR and directs the Police explicitly to register offenses,
among other things, under Sec ons 420/120-B IPC & offenses under EP Act, 1986 &
then taking them as Scheduled/Predicate Offences, has embarked upon inves ga ons
under PMLA thus, adorning the role of a judge, jury & execu oner at the same me;
Rela ng to MMDR Act & EP Act, the following aspects may be no ced: Specific
procedure is prescribed. Authori es have been designated to look into the viola ons
under both enactments. Offences are cognizable, but cognizance by the Court can only
be taken on a complaint to be filed by specific authori es under both Acts. Under both
the MMDR Act, 1957 & EP Act, 1986, cognizance can be taken only on a complaint by
the Authori es men oned therein (Sec on 19 of EP Act, 1986 & Sec on 22 of MMDR
Act, 1957). Both are Special Acts that would displace the provisions of IPC. He further
submits that the penal provisions of IPC can operate only in the event the par cular
5 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
enactment does not cover the space. Once the allega on is of illegal mining, sec on 4 of
the MMDR Act provides for all the necessary compliances & in the event of its non-
compliance, it is punishable u/s 21 thereof with a term of imprisonment and/or fine, etc.
The offences are compoundable in terms of the said Act. In terms of the said Act, the
Haryana Rules 2012 have been framed & specific authority has been designated to take
ac on thereunder. As per Rule 105, for first & second- me viola ons of the said mineral
shall be liable to be seized along with the impounding of all such tools, equipment,
vehicles or any other things used for such unauthorized opera on, which may be
released only upon realiza on of the payment of the price of the mineral and the
applicable royalty for the mineral extracted and, in addi on, a fine up to fiOeen
thousand will happen & for a third- me viola on, the officer concerned shall register an
FIR and handover all such tools, equipment, vehicles or any other things used for such
unauthorized opera on to the Police. Any such offense shall entail confisca on of all
such tools, equipment, vehicles, or any other thing used for such unauthorized
opera on for a period of a minimum of thirty days or more and pecuniary penalty and
punishment for the offense as provided under Sec on 21 of the Mines & Minerals
(Development & Regula on) Act, 1957 happen. Therefore, under no circumstances
could the Police record an FIR.
11. It shall be appropriate to refer the relevant provision of the Preven on of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA], reads as follows:
[2(u)] "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or
indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal ac vity rela ng to a scheduled
offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or
held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the
country or abroad;
Explana on.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "pro-
ceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the
scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly
be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal ac vity relatable to the
scheduled offence;
[2(y)] "scheduled offence" means--
(i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or
(ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value
involved in such
offences is one crore rupees or more; or
(iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.
[3]. Offence of money-laundering.--Whosoever directly or indirectly aGempts to
indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any
process or ac vity connected with the proceeds of crime including its conceal-
ment, possession, acquisi on or use and projec ng or claiming it as untainted
property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.
Explana on.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,--
(i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person
is found to have
6 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
directly or indirectly aGempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or know-
ingly is a party or is actually
involved in one or more of the following processes or ac vi es connected
with proceeds of crime,
namely:--
(a) concealment; or
(b) possession; or
(c) acquisi on; or
(d) use; or
(e) projec ng as untainted property; or
(f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever;
(ii) the process or ac vity connected with proceeds of crime is a con nu-
ing ac vity and con nues ll such me a person is directly or indirectly
enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or ac-
quisi on or use or projec ng it as untainted property or claiming it as un-
tainted property in any manner whatsoever.
[66]. Disclosure of informa on.--
(1) The Director or any other authority specified by him by a general or special
order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to--
(i) any officer, authority or body performing any func ons under any law
rela ng to imposi on of any tax, duty or cess or to dealings in foreign ex-
change, or preven on of illicit traffic in the narco c drugs and psy-
chotropic substances under the Narco c Drugs and Psychotropic Sub-
stances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or
(ii) such other officer, authority or body performing func ons under any
other law as the Central Government may, if in its opinion it is necessary
so to do in the public interest, specify, by no fica on in the Official
GazeGe, in this behalf, any informa on received or obtained by such Di-
rector or any other authority, specified by him in the performance of
their func ons under this Act, as may, in the opinion of the Director or
the other authority, so specified by him, be necessary for the purpose of
the officer, authority or body specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) to per-
form his or its func ons under that law.
(2) If the Director or other authority specified under sub-sec on (1) is of the
opinion, on the basis of informa on or material in his possession, that the provi-
sions of any other law for the me being in force are contravened, then the Di-
rector or such other authority shall share the informa on with the concerned
agency for necessary ac on.
12. An analysis of this argument ignores the material aspect that the primary
offenses registered in the above cap oned FIR are under 120-B & 420 IPC, which are
cognizable. In addi on to the offenses of 420 IPC being cognizable, it does not even
require any prior sanc on in the case of the pe oner, who is not a public servant.
There is no viola on of Sec on 66 of PMLA. Thus, despite a lengthy submission, the
fundamental point is short, and the pe oner fails to make out any case based on these
submissions.
13. The pe oner's first prayer is for the issuance of direc ons to ensure that the
respondents do not violate the spirit and sanc ty of the proceedings pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7382 of 2023 (supra).
7 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
14. The first prayer is to enforce the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Instead of approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the Na onal Green Tribunal, the
pe oner is filing the present pe on before this Court. The power under Sec on 482
Cr.P.C. does not encompass such a broad spectrum to bring in its fold the protec on of
orders of force that are superior to those under Sec on 482 CrPC; as such, this Court has
no jurisdic on to decide prayer and first prayer does not make out a prima facie case for
issuance of no ce, as such, the first prayer is dismissed with liberty to the pe oner to
approach the appropriate Court.
15. The pe oner's second prayer is that respondent No.6-Enforcement Directorate
must remain within the statutory limits of Sec on 66 (2) under the Preven on of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (from now on referred to as PMLA Act) and nothing beyond. The
pe oner's grievance is that as per Sec on 66(2) of the PMLA Act, the concerned official
should be directed not to share informa on beyond what has been men oned in
subclause (2) of Sec on 66 of the PMLA Act and nothing beyond it.
16. The pe oner's grievance is contained in Sec ons 2.22 and 2.23 of the pe on,
which reads as follows:
"2.22 In a strange turn of events and in a manner contrary to the
mandate of Sec on 66(2) PMLA or any other rules and forms of
law, the Respondent No. 7 Joint Director ED sent a communica on
dated 15.1.2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Gobind Pura,
Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, thereby virtually dicta ng the police to
register a case for specific offences as desired by the said officer.
2.23 Merely as a rubber-stamp; post office and mouth piece, the
police proceeded to mechanically register a case without any legal
opinion and sans any applica on of mind. The relevant contents of
the FIR reads as under:
"Related persons/en es are involved in money laundering and
are in possession of proceeds of crime or records/ property related
to money laundering. 7. In view of the above, it is clear that
en es namely M/s. Delhi Royalty Company, M/s. Mubarikpur
Royalty Company, M/s. Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd,
JSM foods Pvt. Ltd and PS Buildtech and persons namely Dilbag
Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh (PS Buildtech), Manoj
Kumar Wadhwa, Angad Singh Makkad, Gurpartap Singh Mann,
Raman Ojha, Rajesh Chikara, Inderpal Singh, Naseeb Singh, Nirmal
Roy, Mukesh Bansal, Ranbir Singh Rana, in connivance with others
were involved in rampant illegal and unscien fic mining in the
mines alloJed to them, viola ng Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regula on) Act, damage to the environment in
contraven on to Sec ons 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of the Environment
Protec on Act, 1986 and provisions of Sec on 120-B, 420 of IPC,
1860 8. The above informa on is being shared with you under
Sec on 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002 for necessary ac on at your end.
Encl. As above. Sd/- Navneet Agrawal, Navaneet Agrawal, Joint
Director, Gurugram Zonal Office, Enforcement Directorate."
Copy of FIR 0021 dated 19.1.2024 is annexed as ANNEXURE P-15.
AJack on pe oner's family and threat of extor on by gangsters."
8 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
17. Senior counsel appearing for the pe oner has argued that the communica ons
made by the Joint Director of Enforcement Directorate are illegal, arbitrary, and
unsustainable. He submits that in the garb of Sec on 66(2) of the PMLA Act, the Joint
Director has virtually directed and dictated the police adopt the course of ac on and has
ensured that offenses under Sec on 420 and 120-B IPC are also added so that
Enforcement Directorate gets and usurp jurisdic on to register an ECIR. Thus, the
Enforcement Directorate is, first of all, sharing informa on not because any other law
has been contravened but merely to get an FIR registered so that based on that
predicate offense, they can also register an ECIR in the scheduled offense under the
PMLA Act. Pe oner's grievance is that, as such, FIR No.21 dated 19.01.2024 has been
registered merely by ac ng as a rubber stamp of the Enforcement Directorate, and it
amounts to arbitrariness and fails to qualify the test of legality, equity, or jus ce.
18. For a re-appraisal of this argument, it is necessary to review the report that the
concerned officer of the Enforcement Directorate furnished under Sec on 66 (2) of the
PMLA. The said report, in fact, forms FIR No.21 and has been annexed as Annexure P-15,
which reads as follows:
F.NO.-ECIR/GNZO/19/2023/5405 DT 15.01.2024 To The
Superintendent of Police, Gobind Pura, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri,
Haryana 135003 Sir, Subject Sharing of informa on under Sec on
66(2) of the Preven on of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in respect
of M/s. Delhi Royalty Company, M/s. Mubarikpur Royalty
Company and M/s. Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd, M/s.
JSM Foods Pvt. Ltd., M/s. PS Buildtech-Reg. 1. NGT order in
Original Applica on No. 150/2021 dated 18.11.2022 in respect of
M/s. Delhi Royalty Company, M/s. Mubarikpur Royalty Company
and M/s. Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Ref. 2. NGT
order in Original Applica on No. 423/2022 dated 31.05.2022 in
respect of M/s. JSM Foods Pvt. Ltd., M/s. PS Buildtech. Please refer
to the above. 2. It is submiJed that the Hon'ble NGT in its order
dated 18.11.2022 has found three mining en es of Yamuna
Nagar, namely M/s. Delhi Royalty Company, M/s. Mubarikpur
Royalty Company and M/s. Development Strategies (India) Pvt.
Ltd, guilty of viola on of environmental norms and doing illegal
mining and penalised as well. It is per nent to men on that
Development Strategies India Private Limited was alloJed 23.05
hectares at Pobari village in Yamunanagar's Radaur block for the
mining of boulders, gravel and sand for nine years. The mining
lease order started its produc on at the site on 09.12.2016. Delhi
Royalty Company was alloJed a 13.59- hectare site at Kohliwala
village in Chhachhrauli Tehsil, Yamuna Nagar District, for the
mining of boulders, gravel and sand. The lease period was for
eight years. The mining order started its produc on at site on
11.08.2016. Mubarikpur Company was alloJed 28 hectares at
Bailgarh village in Chhachhrauli Tehsil, Yamuna Nagar District, for
a period of nine years. The mining lease order started its
produc on at the site on 09.12.2016. Based on the observa ons of
the Monitoring CommiJee established the Hon'ble NGT, the
Hon'ble Tribunal has passed an order dated 18.11.2022 (copy
9 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
enclosed) in respect of Delhi Royalty Company, Mubarikpur
Royalty Company and M/s Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd,
as under: "6. We find it appropriate to accept the report as there is
no meaningful objec on against the same. Thus, it is clear that as
Respondent No.11 is concerned, apart from viola ng the
requirement of undertaking replenishment study, not developing
green belt, not implemen ng progressive mine closure plan, not
installing CCTV cameras and not having GPS system, diversion of
river flow, illegal instream mining, not providing weigh bridge at
the entry of the mining lease area are clear viola ons. With regard
Respondent No. 12, apart from viola ons found in the case of
Respondent No. 11, further viola ons are installing boundary
pillars, con nuing mining even aTer termina on of the lease,
using groundwater transported through tankers instead of using
treated sewage water. With regard Respondent No. 13, apart
from other viola ons which are common with Respondent No. 11,
the said PP was found crossing the prescribed depth for mining. 7.
In view of above serious viola ons, accountability has to be
determined for such viola ons on polluter paus principle for
restoring the damage to the environment. Compensa on has to
be fixed having regard to the nature of viola ons, period of
viola on, cost of restora on and financial capacity of the PP's in
view of principles laid down. 8. Though as per Common Cause,
compensa on in case of illegal mining can be equal to the value to
the mined material, apart from compensa on for viola on of
environmental norms, we fix the same @ 10% of the lease money
i.e. Rs. 2.5 crore, Rs. 4.2 crore and Rs. 12 crore in respect of
Respondents No. 11 to 13 respec vely. The amount may be
deposited within one month with the State PCB which is to be
u lized for restora on of the environment by preparing and
execu ng an ac on plan, in consulta on with the District
Magistrate..." Further, on an applica on filed before the Hon'ble
NGT with an appeal to direct the concerned authori es to stop
mining ac vity by the JSM foods Pvt. Ltd and PS Buildtech at
Mandoli Gaggar West cast, Kanalsi and Jairam Jagir of Yamuna
Nagar district and for quashing of the mining permits to the above
respondents, the Hon'ble Tribunal has passed an interim order on
31.05.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has ordered that: 14.
Even though respondent no.7, 8 shall be bound by undertaking
given by their learned counsel but we consider it appropriate to
give specific direc on that ll further orders no mining of boulder
and gravels shall be carried out on the mining sites in ques on by
the respondents no. 7 and 8....... 3. Further, on the basis of
Informa on in possession of this office wherein it was found that
illegal mining and unscien fic mining was carried out on rampant
scale in the respec ve mines alloJed to M/s. Delhi Royalty
Company, M/s Mubarikpur Royalty Company and M/s.
Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd (as discussed above) and
in order to gather further evidence of persons involved in money
laundering and record of proceeds of crime, Searches u/s 17 of
PMLA were conducted on 04.01.2024 on the premises of M/s.
Delhi Royalty Company, M/s. Mubarikpur Royalty Company, M/s.
Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd, JSM foods Pvt. Ltd and PS
Buildtech and its partners and directors. 4. Apart from above
persons, on the basis of informa on in possession of this office,
10 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
Searches were also conducted at the residen al premises of the
Directors of M/s JSM Foods Pvt. Ltd, and business premises of PS
Buildtech. During the search, various incrimina ng documents
have been found and seized from the above premises with respect
to illegal mining, 6. During the inves ga on, it has been revealed
that above firma and related persons have violated environmental
norms (such as in-stream mining using heavy machinery during
the odd hours, diversion the Now of River Yamuna by laying of
layer of sand in the lease area extract the more quan ty of sand
from the lease areas etc.) their involvement in illegal and
unscien fic mining. It has also been revealed that these
en es/persons have issued fake e-rawanas or not issued e
rawanas for transporta on, done mining despite clear ban by
Hon'ble NGT, mined beyond permissible limits, not followed
rules/regula ons prescribed by the Environment (Protect) Acts
related regula ons. Such proceeds earned out of illegal
unscien fic mining has been routed through various dummy
en es in fic ous names, deposi ng huge cash in those en es
and layering of such money into their personal bank accounts
related companies/en es etc. Related persons/en es are
involved in money laundering and are in possession of proceeds of
crime or records/ property related to money laundering. 7. view of
the above, it clear that en es namely M/s. Delhi Royalty
Company, M/s. Mubarikpur Royalty Company, M/s. Development
Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd, JSM foods Pvt. Ltd and PS Buildtech and
persons namely Dilbag Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh (PS
Buildtech), Manoj Kumar Wadhwa, Angad Singh Makkad,
Gurpartap Singh Mann, Raman Ojha, Rajesh Chikara, Inderpal
Singh, Naseeb Singh, Nirmal Roy, Mukesh Bansal, Ranbir Singh
Rana, connivance with others were involved in rampant illegal and
unscien fic mining in the mines alloJed to them, viola ng Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regula on) Act, damage to
environment in contraven on to Sec ons 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of the
Environment Protec on Act, 1986 and provisions of Sec on 120-B,
420 of IPC, 1860. 8. The above informa on is being shared with
you under Sec on 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002 for necessary ac on at
your end. Encl. As above. Sd/-Navneet Agrawal, Navaneet
Agrawal, Joint Director, Gurugram Zonal Office, Enforcement
Directorate.
19. As per the instruc ons handed over by the ED, the Pe oner is a Partner in M/S
Mubarikpur Royalty Company, hereaOer referred to as MRC, which is found to be
involved in the commission of the offense of money laundering as defined under sec on
3, PMLA in connivance with other related en es and persons. Further, the Pe oner's
firm, M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company, is expressly named in FIR NO. 226 dated
14.10.2022 registered at the P.S. Yamuna Nagar District Haryana under Sec ons 120-B &
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is one of the scheduled offenses for the
recording of ECIR/GNZO/19/2023. The other FIR which are part of the scheduled offense
are as follows-
11 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
S. FIR Schedule Offence
No.
1. 0226 dt. 14.10.2022 Sec ons 120-B & 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. 0116 dt. 23.03.2023 Sec ons 120-B, 411, 420 of Indian Penal Code,
3. 0111 dt. 01.06.2023 Sec ons 420, 467 & 471 of Indian Penal Code,
4. 0206 dt. 19.09.2022 Sec on 420 of Indian Penal Code
5. 0216 dt. 30.09.2022 Sec on 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
6. 0204 dt. 14.09.2022 Sec ons 120-B & 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
7. 0033 dt. 10.02.2023 Sec ons 420, 467 & 471 of Indian Penal Code,
8. 0054 dt. 16.02.2023 Sec ons 420, 467 & 471 of Indian Penal Code,
20. As per ED's counsel, aOer the analysis of the bank accounts of MRC, it is found
that Cash deposited to the tune of approximately Rs. 67 Crores in the bank account of
MRC, and further it is siphoned off to the various en es/ persons being inves gated
under the provisions of the Preven on of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Monitoring
CommiGee established by the Hon'ble Tribunal visited the mining lease area in the river
area for surveying respect of Mubarikpur Royalty Company on 01.04.2022 and
23.04.2022, wherein the Monitoring CommiGee has observed that the mining lease
holder has not maintained a distance of 500 m from the ac ve edge of the embankment
of the river. As such, the mining lease holder has not followed the guidelines men oned
as Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016, violated the various condi ons men oned
in the Mining Plan and Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transporta on of
Minerals and Preven on of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012. Viola ons commiGed by MRC
include viola ng the requirement of undertaking replenishment study, not developing a
green belt, not implemen ng a progressive mine closure plan, not installing CCTV
cameras and not having a GPS, diversion of river flow, illegal instream mining, not
providing weighbridge at the entry of the mining lease area, etc. Based on the above
findings, the Hon'ble Na onal Green Tribunal, vide its Order dated 18.11.2022, had
imposed huge penal es against M/s. Development Strategies India Private Limited
(Respondent No. 11), Delhi Royalty Company (Respondent No. 12), and Mubarikpur
Royalty Company (Respondent No. 13) for severe viola ons of environmental norms
such as illegal mining, diversion of river flow, etc. Excerpts of the Order are reproduced
as: -
6. We find it appropriate to accept the report as there is no
meaningful objec on against the same. Thus, it is clear that as far
as Respondent No. 11 is concerned, apart from viola ng the
requirement of undertaking replenishment study, not developing
green belt, not implemen ng progressive mine closure plan, not
installing CCTV cameras and not having GPS system, diversion of
river flow, illegal instream mining, not providing weigh bridge at
the entry of the mining lease area are clear viola ons. With regard
to Respondent No. 12, apart from viola ons found in the case of
Respondent No. 11. further viola ons are not installing boundary
pillars, con nuing mining even aTer termina on of the lease,
using groundwater transported through tankers instead of using
12 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
treated sewage water. With regard to Respondent No. 13. apart
from other viola ons which are common with Respondent No. 11,
the said PP was found crossing the prescribed depth for mining.
7. In view of above serious viola ons, accountability has to be
determined for such viola ons on polluter pays principle for
restoring the damage to the environment. Compensa on has to
be fixed having regard to the nature of viola ons, period of
viola on, cost of restora on and financial capacity of the PPs in
view of principles laid down.....
8. Though as per Common Cause, compensa on in case of illegal
mining can be equal to the value to the mined material, apart
from compensa on for viola on of environmental norms. we fix
the same @ 10% of the lease money ie. Rs. 2.5 crore. Rs. 4.2 crore
and Rs. 12 crores in respect of Respondents No. 11 to 13
respec vely. The amount may be deposited within one month with
the State PCB which is to be u lized for restora on of the
environment by preparing and execu ng an ac on plan, in
consulta on with the District Magistrate....."
21. As per the instruc ons supplied by the ED, in furtherance of the PMLA
proceedings, based on reasons to believe, a search u/s 17 of the PMLA, 2002 was
conducted at mul ple premises to inves gate the offense of commission of money
laundering through illegal mining at large scale in Yamuna Nagar and nearby districts.
Two premises of the Pe oner-residence and registered office of M/S Mubarikpur
Royalty Company were searched, and mul ple incrimina ng documents, digital devices,
and evidence were recovered, which reveals the genera on of "proceeds of crime" by
the Pe oner's firm. Also, unaccounted Cash of Rs. 4,50,000/- which is believed to be
Proceeds of Crime, was also recovered from the residence of the Pe oner. Based on
the above facts, the material in possession, and findings of the Directorate of
Enforcement, informa on was shared under sec on 66(2) of the PMLA,2002 with the
Police. Further, under the informa on shared u / s 66(2) of the FMLA, 2002, an FIR No.
21 dated 19.01.2024 was registered u/ s 120-B, 420 of IPC, 1860, 21(1) of Mines and
Minerals (Regula on of Development) Act, 1957 and 15 & 16 of Environment Protec on
Act, 1986 at P.S. Pratap Nagar, Yamuna Nagar.
22. The pe oner's remaining arguments are that the present case violates
statutory provisions contained in the MMDR Act & Haryana Rules 2012 framed
thereunder. Principally, the Appeal stands admiGed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and
the issue is sub-judice as to whether the pe oner or his firm has commiGed any breach
of the provisions. The Grounds of Appeal are comprehensive, and in the Appeal, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued a No ce and a condi onal stay regarding recovery
has also been granted therein. The communica on sent by the ED officer to the police
to register a case under par cular provisions of law would amount to dicta ng the
course of ac on to be adopted by the police and how the police have chosen to register
a case without any preliminary inquiry or verifica on of facts that too unthinkingly and
13 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
without any legal opinion, tantamount to gross abuse of the process of law. The police
could not have added Sec ons 420/120B IPC &/or EP Act, 1986 and even MMDR Act,
1957, or, for that maGer, any other kind of offense without jurisdic on and proper and
due applica on of mind. Viewed from any perspec ve, the FIR is a s llborn child; it is
now well seGled that if the FIR or the Scheduled/Predicate Offence does not survive, the
proceedings under PMLA will cease to exist. The summons has been issued to the
pe oner to appear in person, but he has already been explicitly nominated as an
accused in the FIR, which the ED has lodged. Thus, the ED, as Complainant in the police
case, is calling the pe oner an accused but is now asking him to come and appear
under Sec on 50 PMLA, which is merely an inquiry, and a person does not have the
protec on of Ar cle 20(3) not to self-incriminate or to remain silent and the protec on
of Sec on 25 of Indian Evidence Act un l he is formally made as an accused in PMLA
case. In the wake of the above, once the pe oner has been made an accused by the ED
itself in the FIR, it cannot be countenanced that he will be asked to appear in person in
terms of Sec on 50 PMLA, which contemplates obliga on on the person to aGend as
directed; to state the truth and the proceedings before the ED officer would be a
"judicial proceeding." The whole context of Sec on 50 PMLA would have a different
outlook once the ED itself has chosen to arraign the pe oner as an accused in the FIR
lodged by themselves. Therefore, the pe oner's fundamental rights under Ar cle 21 of
the Cons tu on of India are grossly violated as the procedure established by law is not
followed, and the proceedings launched are grossly actuated with malice in law.
23. Based on the crimes men oned in para No. 3 (supra), the Enforcement
Directorate was also prosecu ng him for proceeds of crime. During such enquiry, the
Joint Director of Enforcement Directorate, got to know about commission of other
offences and thus he rightly exercised his statutory obliga ons in accordance with
Sec on 66(2) of PMLA and informed the concerned Superintendent of Police,
Gobindpur, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. Neither, such communica on sent by the Joint
Director of Enforcement Directorate to Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar is a
direc on nor the said Joint Director had any authority to direct for registra on of FIR.
Thus, the pe oner's conten on that the said communica on amounts to direc on is
misreading of the said communica on, which has been reproduced in para 16. The
communica on is only informa on and it is the power of concerned inves gator/SHO to
register FIR if they are sa sfied and found offence cognizable, as such, the present
pe on deserves dismissal even on this prayer and related prayers.
24. An analysis of the above arguments clearly points out that if this court disrupts
the proceedings at this stage, it will amount to interfering in the inves ga on and
presuming the malicious intent. It is not that the pe oner has been deprived of his
14 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
CRM-M-5228-2024 2024:PHHC:022543
liberty but to carry out inves ga on is also the statutory obliga on of the inves gators.
If the prosecu on is launched, it is always permissible to an accused to seek discharge
and even to challenge the charges, if framed. However, disrup ng proceedings at ini al
stage would violate the duty to inves gate the crime and bring guilty to jus ce to do
jus ce to the vic m.
25. Given the above, an analysis of the above does not make a case for issuing a
formal no ce and seeking a reply, and no response is required for the following
clarifica ons. Consequently, the pe oner does not jus fy any prayer except that the
further inves ga on will also be carried out in accordance with law and that in the
future also, if any informa on is shared, the same shall again be shared within the
parameters of sec on 66 of PMLA.
Pe66on dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applica ons, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
01.02.2024
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022543
15 of 15
