Jharkhand High Court Grants Relief To 4 ED Officials In Hemant Soren's FIR Under SC/ST Act; State Directed To Not Take Any Coercive Measures

The Jharkhand High Court has granted significant relief to Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials by ordering on that no coercive measures be taken against them in connection with a case stemming from an FIR filed by former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren. The FIR, under the ST/SC Act on January 31, accused the ED officials of harassing Soren on the basis of his tribal identity, thereby tarnishing his reputation in the eyes of the public.

Justice Anil Kumar Chaudhary held, “Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as this is a nascent stage and notice has already been ordered to be issued to the opposite party No.2, this Court do not delving into the merits of the case in the absence of the opposite party No.2 at the stage but keeping in view the fact that the allegation against the petitioners relates to the discharge of the duties of the petitioners under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 as also the bar for prosecution as contained in Section 67 of the PMLA, 2002; this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the opposite party No.1 be directed not to take any coercive steps against the four petitioners of this case till the next date of listing of this case in connection with ST/SC P.S. Case No.06 of 2024 which is pending in the court of learned Special Judge, ST/SC Act, Ranchi.”

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials, who were implicated in the FIR on a complaint filed by the former Chief Minister, had approached the Jharkhand High Court in their personal capacity to contest the FIR registered against them.

The ED officials had refuted any claims of issuing any official statement or press release to print or electronic media regarding the search operation conducted at the premises of Soren. Additionally, they emphasized that media coverage itself does not constitute any legal offense, and there has been no media leak on the part of the petitioners.

The ED Officials had argued that Soren deliberately chose to file the FIR in the state of Jharkhand to wield his political influence, given his position as the (Ex) Chief Minister.

The FIR, which lodged by the Jharkhand Police under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) at the SC/ST police station in Ranchi, was based on a complaint by Soren concerning searches conducted by the ED at his Delhi residence.

The FIR listed ED Additional Director Kapil Raj, Assistant Director Deovrat Jha, and two other officials, Anuman Kumar and Aman Patel, along with unnamed officials.

The FIR invoked sections of the SC/ST Act, including 3(1) (p) [instituting false, malicious or vexatious legal proceedings], (r) [intentional insult or intimidation within public law], (s) [abusing by caste name in any place within public view], and (u) [promoting feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will].

Soren, in his complaint, alleged that the ED's search operation at his Delhi residence was conducted with the intention to harass and malign him and his community. He further claimed that ED officials had strategically leaked information to the media to create a spectacle, aiming to tarnish his reputation in the eyes of the public.

It was Soren's grievance that there were extensive coverage by national and Jharkhand based print and electronic media and a presumption is drawn that it is the petitioners who have informed the media of the search so as to create a media spectacle and cause disrepute to the informant in the eyes of general public by leaking selected information that a Blue BMW Car seized from the said premises belongs to the informant and huge sums of illicit cash belonging to the informant, was found in the premises.

It was asserted by Soren in the written-report itself that, “he is not the owner of the car of BMW make claimed to have been seized by the petitioners and he does not owe the illicit cash seized by the petitioners,” the court added.”

During a 13-hour search at Soren's Delhi residence on January 29 and 30, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) reported seizing Rs 36 lakh, an SUV car, and numerous "incriminating" documents related to a money laundering investigation tied to an alleged land deal in Jharkhand.

Amit Kumar Das, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials, suggested that a notice be issued to Soren at his current address as it's likely he no longer resides at the address mentioned in the case title of this Cr.M.P. Furthermore, Soren is currently in judicial custody.

To support this argument, Das provided a copy of the order-sheet dated 02.02.2024 from the ECIR Case presided over by the A.J.C.-1st-cum-Special Judge, Under PMLA, Ranchi.

In response, the court instructed the ED officials, “to file requisites for service of notice upon the opposite party No.2 by registered post with A/D as well as under process of the court within two days failing which; this Cr.M.P. shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.”

The counsel further argued that the FIR fails to establish any offense, let alone offenses under Sections 3(1)(p), (r), (s), and (u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Moreover, it was contended that to constitute the offense under Section 3(1)(p) of the Act, there must be evidence indicating the initiation of false, malicious, or vexatious legal proceedings against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Citing various precedents, it was emphasized that unless it's determined by competent authority that the cases filed against the victim, who reported the incident or on whose behalf the FIR was filed, are indeed false, malicious, or vexatious, the offense under Section 3(1)(p) cannot be established.

Additionally, it was pointed out that there were no allegations of insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, especially not in public view. Consequently, no offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act could be discerned. Absent such allegations, it was argued that the offense under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act could not be established.

Furthermore, it was argued that none of the accused persons were accused of promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will against any member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe through words, written or spoken, signs, visible representations, or otherwise. In the absence of such allegations, it was contended that no offense under Section 3(1)(u) of the Act could be construed.

Consequently, it was urged that no coercive steps be taken against the State until the next scheduled hearing of the case.

Gopal Sankarnarayanan, the senior counsel representing the opposing party No.1, the State, has contested the request for any order preventing coercive actions by the State during the investigation against the four petitioners in the case at hand.

When questioned by the court about whether the Special Public Prosecutor or the State government had informed the victim about the ongoing proceedings of this criminal miscellaneous petition, despite the State Government receiving a copy of the petition over a month ago, the learned senior counsel representing the opposing party No.1, the State, acknowledged the duty incumbent upon both the Special Public Prosecutor and the State Government to inform the victim about proceedings under the act. However, he clarified that since the case might be dismissed on the first day itself, neither the State Government nor the Special Public Prosecutor had notified the opposing party No.2 or his dependents about the proceedings of this criminal miscellaneous petition.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, the Court was of the considered view that Section 71 of the PMLA, 2002 makes it abundantly clear that the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 overrides the provisions of the SC/ST Act as by the time of enactment of PMLA, 2002, including the non-obstante provision in section 71 of PMLA, 2002, the provisions of the SC/ST Act were already in force.

The Court noted, “It is the case of the petitioners that all the allegations made against them are relating to the acts committed by them in the course of discharge of their official duty and section 67 of PMLA, 2002, bars any prosecution or other proceedings against inter alia any officer of the Government for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.”

“Though nowhere it has been mentioned in the written report as to what was the designation of the informant-opposite party No.2, except that he is the Member of Legislative Assembly representing Sahebganj Constituency but Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan- the learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1- State, submits that till late night of 31.01.2024, the opposite party No.2 was the Chief Minister of State of Jharkhand and in that capacity he was occupying the rented premises of opposite party No.1-State, at New Delhi in which search and seizure was conducted from 7:10 hours to 21:25 hours on 29.01.2024,” the Court further added.

Accordingly, the Court directed the State (opposite party No.1) to not take any coercive steps against the four petitioners of this case till the next date of listing of this case in connection with ST/SC (P.S. Case No.06 of 2024) which is pending in the court of the Special Judge, ST/SC Act, Ranchi.

The case will now be listed after the receipt of the service report of the notice issued to Soren or after his appearance, whichever is earlier.

The Jharkhand High Court on 28.02.2024 rejected the petition filed by Soren seeking permission to attend the Budget Session of Jharkhand Assembly which started on February 23. Soren had moved the High Court against the PMLA Court's order which denied him permission regarding the same.

Earlier on February 3, the PMLA court had allowed Soren's petition seeking permission to attend the floor test of Chief Minister Champai Soren at the Jharkhand Assembly.

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shivam U. Sahay, Advocate Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate Mr. Sidharth Jain, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr.Advocate Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III Mr. S. Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Pallavi Langar, Advocate Mr. Achyut Keshav, Advocate

Case No.: Cr.M.P. No.286 of 2024

Case Title: Kapil Raj and Ors vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr

Click Here To Read The Order