Cash-For-Jobs Scam: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Quash ECIR Against TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, But Orders ED To Not Take Coercive Steps

However, it refused to the quash the ECIR itself. A single-judge bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh directed the ED not to take any coercive action against Banerjee, except under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (“PMLA”) as had been elaborated by the Apex Court in V. Senthil Balaji’s case.

As such, except the statement of Sujay Krishna Bhadra (an accused who is in custody) no materials were produced by E.D. before this Court to relate the petitioner with the ECIR under challenge. Having regard to the same I direct that no coercive measures would be taken against the petitioner by the E.D. without adhering to Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002. So far as the prayer for quashing of ECIR/KLZO-II/19/2022, I am of the view that the stage at which the petitioner approached this Court was premature compared to the present stage of investigation and as such the same cannot be interfered with, it was held.

Brief facts of the case

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the petitioner argued that the petitioner and his relative were being unnecessarily inconvenienced by the Central Investigative Agencies, and that there were at the receiving end of mala fides due to their political affiliations.

It was submitted that the petitioner had been “dragged into” the proceedings arising out of the “teacher-recruitment scam” and that his associates were being pressurised to implicate him in the matter, with one Kuntal Ghosh complaining of custodial torture by the CBI and ED.

Petitioner’s argued that the Supreme Court in an SLP had given the petitioners liberty to canvass all avenues, including the present quashing plea under section 482 CrPC.

It was further submitted that the petitioner was being unnecessarily summoned by the investigative agencies when he was out for political campaigning, without any incriminating material.

Senior Counsel argued that if all surrounding circumstances were taken into account, then it would become clear that the agencies had manifest mala fides against the petitioner and that the Central Agencies are being misused by the Central Government to specifically target and harass the petitioner and his family members as they belong to an opposition political party.

ASG SV Raju appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the quashing plea would not be maintainable sine the ECIR was not a statutory document, but merely for internal circulation.

It was argued that the petitioner had merely been summoned, and that at the summons stage, he would not qualify as an “aggrieved person” in the present situation.

ASG submitted that the Supreme Court had noted that at the present stage, the investigation being “incipient could not be stupefied” and that the Investigating Agency has independent powers of enquiry/investigation which is not dependent on any court orders.

It was argued that the petitioner had never appeared before the Investigating officer in the recruitment scam, and was attempting to avoid the investigation by filing various applications before court.

It was submitted: The petitioner’s action itself speaks that he is not cooperating with the investigating agency and as such after defying the summons on the garb of Panchayat elections and political rally, he left for USA.

ED submitted that the Supreme Court had deprecated the practise of granting no-corecive action orders, and that the petitioner was only praying for no coercive action since he was apprehending arrest.

Findings of the Court

In evaluating the arguments of the parties, the Bench noted that the ED had only referred to a supplementary complaint by a co-accused in its report.

It was noted that the petitioner had to take out an intervention application upon a raid on his organisation “Leaps & Bounds” and that in unauthorisedly downloading 16 files from the company’s computers during the raid, the approach of the E.D. Officers were casual but the Court had to intervene to stop canvassing and stretch the issue as the core subject relating to the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was being deviated towards the end of the hearing.

In observing that the petitioner’s apprehension arose out of previous instances of alleged harassment and inconvenience caused to him and his family by the investigative agencies, the Court held that except a statement of one of the co accused who was in custody, the ED had failed to place any material which related the petitioner to the ECIR being challenged.

Accordingly, while refusing to quash the ECIR due to the petitioner’s plea being “premature,” the Court directed that no coercive measures to be taken against the petitioner, except under Section 19 of the PMLA.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 292

Case: Abhishek Banerjee v ED

Case No: CRR 2653/2023