Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by Dharam Singh Chhoker, a former Member of Legislative Assembly, Haryana (‘former MLA’), to set aside his arrest and remand order passed by the Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Gurugram (‘Special Judge’) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), a Single Judge Bench of Tribhuvan Dahiya J. stated that six non-bailable warrants (‘NBWs’) were issued against the former MLA, and he remained non-cooperative throughout, as none of the six NBWs could be executed against him. The Court stated that to unearth the money trail involved regarding the home buyer’s money, custodial interrogation was a mandate and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Background
In the present case, the former MLA was accused of committing an offence under Section 3 read with Section 70 of the PMLA and an inquiry was registered by the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) against him based on four FIRs. The first FIR was under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975; second under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’); third under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC; and fourth under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
The former MLA, along with his sons, statedly controlled Mahira Infratech Private Limited and started an affordable group housing project in Gurugram. They had been granted licenses to build around 1500 flats. It was alleged that the former MLA siphoned the home buyer’s money received by the Company in the form of loans and acquisition of properties apart from making personal expenses out of it.
Further, despite NBWs been issued against the former MLA by the Special Judge, he could not be arrested. Some of these NBWs were challenged by him before the Division Bench also but it got dismissed. Thereafter, the Division Bench in another matter, directed the ED to arrest the former MLA, pursuant to which a fresh open-ended NBWs were issued by the Special Judge and eventually he was apprehended and arrested under Section 19(1) of the PMLA.
The former MLA objected to his arrest stating that mandatory requirements under Section 19 of the PMLA were not followed. He was manhandled and assaulted at the time of the arrest. Further, the arrest was not in execution of the warrants issued, as he wasn’t shown a copy of it.
Per contra, the ED alleged that the moment the arresting officer introduced himself to the former MLA and showed him warrant’s soft copy asking him to accompany peacefully, he tried to flee from the spot and sprinted out of the hotel bar. Then, it was with great difficulty that he could be apprehended at the hotel gate with the help of other officers and staff. The former MLA was also alleged to have resisted the arrest and assaulted the officers who were performing their official duties.
Analysis and Decision
The Court opined that neither former MLA’s allegations could be believed at the current stage, nor could the arrest be termed illegal as the alleged assault was a matter of trial as FIRs were lodged by both sides against each other.
Regarding the NBWs issued against the former MLA, the Court observed that it was an admitted fact that the former MLA was shown a soft copy of the warrant on mobile phone by the arresting officer, at the time of his arrest. The Court noted that showing of soft copy meant that the substance as per Section 75 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was notified to the former MLA. Thus, the Court held that there was no violation of procedure in execution of the NBWs issued against him by the Special Judge.
The Court emphasized that the former MLA was arrested by an authorized officer who had informed him the grounds of arrest and thereafter, the ‘reasons to believe’ was recorded. A copy of the arrest order of the same date along with copies of the arrest memo, intimation of arrest, personal search memo, grounds of arrest and material in possession were forwarded to the Special Judge, based on which the reasons to believe were recorded.
The Court opined that to examine the validity of arrest, neither the adequacy nor sufficiency of material or the officer’s subjective satisfaction was to be reviewed. The Court had to only examine whether the decision to arrest was rational, fair and as per the law. The Court stated that since in the present case, it could not be pointed out that the material based on which the ‘reasons to believe’ recorded by the ED were invalid or were based upon prima facie inadmissible evidence, therefore, the decision to arrest could not be termed as rational and as per the law.
The Court stated that merely because some of the reasons recorded were similar to ones recorded for the co-accused, who were his sons, would not form a ground to render the same invalid. The Court stated that, therefore, it could not be said that the provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA were not duly followed.
Regarding contention that there was no requirement to arrest the former MLA, as her had joined the investigation, the Court stated that merely because he had appeared before the ED in compliance of directions issued in a pending SLP or, because he was not taken in custody at that stage, it could not be a ground to contend that there was no requirement of his arrest after that. The Court specified that three out of six NBWs were issued after such an appearance.
The Court opined that the former MLA remained non-cooperative throughout and none of the six NBWs could be executed. Thus, the Court stated that to unearth the money trail concerned, custodial interrogation was required and there was no reason to disbelieve the same at the current stage and accordingly, dismissed the petition.
[Dharam Singh Chhoker v. Enforcement Directorate, CRWP No. 5261 of 2025(O&M), decided on 11-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate and Hargun Sandhu, Advocate
For the Respondents: Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel and Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Counsel
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
