Delhi HC quashes court’s observations against ED

The ED/petitioner has prayed for quashing of certain observations of the Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, vide his order dated 5.10.2024.

In his order, the special judge said that while there was sufficient time to take coercive action against the absconding suspect, the ED had failed to do so and there was foul play. The judge ruled that the deputy director deliberately wanted to give the suspect an advantage and requested the director to prepare a detailed report.

In the next ruling, the judge noted that the report had been filed and stated that it reflected poorly on the ED. It noted that the ED showed complete apathy towards its observations and summoned the director.

A single judge bench of Judge Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that the fact that the ED filed the complaint without locating or arresting the suspect was not in itself a reason to believe that the ED had not properly investigated the case.

The Court notes that custody of a suspect can be requested even after filing an indictment or complaint. It referred to Dinesh Dalmia vs CBI (2007), where the Supreme Court held that the investigating officer need not wait for the presence of the absconding suspect to file a charge against him.

It was further referenced State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Ghanshyam Prasad Singh (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 548), where the Supreme Court observed that while the court would be justified in ensuring the presence of state officials who were clearly ignoring the directions given by the Court, such a practice should not be adopted as routine. It noted that insisting on the presence of officers in court wastes valuable time that could be spent discharging their duties.

The Court noted this “Furthermore, it goes without saying that negative comments by a court against government officials have a seriously detrimental impact on their official record and on their careers, especially if such comments are unfounded or unjustified.”

The Court thus quashed the Special Judge’s observations against the ED and its officer.

Title of the case: Enforcement Directorate versus Lakshay Vij and Ors. (CRL.MC 8399/2024 & CRL.MA 32063, CRL.MA 32064/2024)