Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Dr. Natesha D.B. - [2025] 173 taxmann.com 423 (HC-Karnataka)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- N.V. Anjaria, CJ. & K.V. Aravind, J.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, an FIR was registered alleging large-scale illegalities in a matter of allotment of sites by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) officials, in which the involvement of several influential persons, including political personalities, was alleged.
Based on the said FIR, the applicant-ED registered an ECIR, and an investigation was conducted. During search proceedings at the respondent’s residence, certain records were seized, a statement under Section 17 of PMLA was recorded, and a summons under Section 50(2) of PMLA was issued.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed a writ petition challenging the investigation process and the summons issued to him. The Single Judge, by the impugned order, declared the search and seizure conducted to be vitiated on the grounds of absence of ‘reason to believe’ and declared it invalid and illegal.
The applicant then filed an instant application seeking a stay of the order of the Single Judge. It was noted that since the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment were under consideration in an appeal already admitted and slated to be listed on the next date, it would not be proper to interject the process of investigation by the ED. Further, it was noted that an investigation into an alleged crime should not be halted.
High Court Held
The High Court observed that ED had to be permitted to proceed with the investigation, and the investigation under PMLA was not to be hampered or put on hold, nor would it be adversely affected by its continuance, in relation to the alleged scam.
The High Court held that the impugned judgment would not bar the ED from proceeding with the inquiry and investigation in accordance with the law, with respect to other accused and other persons, who need to be investigated in connection with the case, notwithstanding the impugned judgment in the case of the respondent. Thus, with the above observations, clarification, provisions and directions, the instant application stands disposed of.
List of Cases Referred to
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India 2022 SCC Online SC 929 (para 4.1.3)
- Sri R.M. Manjunath Gowda v. Directorate of Enforcement and others Writ Appeal No.497 of 2024 (para 4.1.8)
- Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal (2005) 4 SCC 303 (para 4.1.9)
- State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and others (1986) 4 SCC 566 (para 4.2.2)
- Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India (2024) 4 SCC 1 (para 4.2.3)
- Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P. (2002) 4 SCC 234 (para 4.2.3)
- Opto Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis Bank (2021) 6 SCC 707 (para 4.2.6).
The post ED Allowed to Continue Probe Despite Order Quashing Search as Appeal Was Pending and Investigation Couldn’t Be Halted | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
