Arvind Kejriwal Was Legally Bound To Comply With Summons But Failed To Do So: Delhi Court Observes In ED's Complaint

A Delhi Court on Wednesday said that Delhi's Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was legally bound to attend in person in pursuance of the summons issued to him by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the money laundering case related to the excise policy, but purportedly he failed to do so.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Divya Malhotra of Rouse Avenue Courts issued summons to Arvind Kejriwal for the offence under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant).

The court has directed Kejriwal to appear before it on February 17.

“…prima facie offence under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is made out and there are sufficient grounds for proceeding under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against accused Mr. Arvind Kejriwal,” the court said.

It said that the summons were addressed to Kejriwal at his official e-mail address which was prima facie evidenced from the fact that he sent replies to them wherein reasons for his non-appearance were set out.

The court took cognizance of the fresh complaint case filed by ED against Kejriwal for non-compliance of the summons received by him in the money laundering case.

The ED had submitted that to unearth the role of others, including that of Kejriwal, and to trace further proceeds of the crime, the Investigating Officer sought to examine him for investigation and summoned him in exercise of his powers under Section 50(2) of the PMLA.

It was alleged that Kejriwal intentionally omitted to obey the summons and to attend at the place and time mentioned therein and that his intention was manifest from the objections and queries raised by him in his replies.

Thus, it was prayed that Kejriwal be summoned for the offence under Section 174 of IPC.

The court observed that the persons summoned by ED are bound to comply with the same by virtue of Section 50(3) of the PMLA.

“The complaint has been filed by the Assistant Director in discharge of his official duties and has been filed within limitation. The Assistant Director is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC by virtue of Section 40 of the Act. Thus, in view of proviso (a) of Section 200 Cr.P.C. and as the complaint has been made in writing, the examination of the complainant and his witness(es) stands dispensed with,” the court said.

Counsels for ED: ASG S.V. Raju; SPP Zoheb Hossain and Simon Benjamin; Advocates Shweta Desai, Vivek Gurnani and Kartik Sabharwal.

Click Here To Read Order