Jammu & Kashmir High Court
R B Educational Trust & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2025
Sr. No. 85
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(Crl) No. 38/2025
CM No. 4297/2025
R B Educational Trust & Ors .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. R K Kotwal, Advocate &
Mr. Faheem Ahmed Mir, Advocate
Vs
Union of India & Ors ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
21.07.2025
1. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appears and
accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.
2. Notice to the respondents 3 and 4 only returnable by the next date of
hearing, subject to taking of requisite steps for service upon them within a
week’s period.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of his prayer for grant
of relief in interim application bearing CM No. 4297/2025.
Learned counsel during his arguments inter alia contended that the
registration of ECIR/JMSZO/04/2022 dated 31.03.2022 by the respondent
No.2 and the consequent PMLA Prosecution Complaint bearing No. 04 of
2025, CNR No. JKJM010016102025 titled “Directorate of Enforcement vs
R B Educational Trust & Ors” filed by respondent No.2 in the Court of
Special Judge Anti Corruption, CBI cases, Jammu (Special Judge for
PMLA cases) is unwarranted under law as being in contravention of the
provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter
2 WP(C) No. 38/2025
referred to as ‘the PMLA” for short). That the alleged predicate offences
under Sections 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the J&K P.C.Act, Svt. 2006 and Section
120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) under FIR No. RC0042020A0005
dated 12.09.2020, registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, CBI, Jammu
against the petitioners and others are in an eclipsed state as the Charge-
sheet already presented by the Investigating Agency in the said case i.e
Anti Corruption Bureau, CBI, Jammu upon being considered by the learned
Special Court, was not found worth to be put to trial and the learned
Special Court through a very detailed order dated 27.03.2023 directed for
re-investigation of the matter under the supervision of Superintendent of
Police, CBI concerned, to be done within a period of four weeks therefrom.
He contended that the petitioners aggrieved by even the said order dated
27.03.2023 challenged the same through a Writ Petition CRM(M) No.
1042/2023 before this Court and this Court through order dated 13.12.2023
was pleased to stay the proceedings on the said basic Charge-sheet of the
CBI Anti Corruption Bureau. He contended that having regard to the fact of
the legality of the basic FIR being under challenge with the orders dated,
27.03.2023 of the learned Special Court, 13.12.2023 of this Court, putting
the proceedings on the said case under eclipse/halt, the registration of the
impugned case FIR and the presentation of the impugned complaint by the
respondents 1 and 2 prima facie appears to be unjustified under law.
Learned counsel further contended that on one hand, the predicate case was
registered by the CBI Anti Corruption, Jammu under the offences in terms
of erstwhile J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 and Section 120-
B of Ranbir Penal Code 1989 and on the other hand, the corresponding/Pari
3 WP(C) No. 38/2025
materia offences i.e Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (Central) as well as Section 120-B of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 were not included in the Schedule to the PMLA Act at the time
of alleged occurrence period 2010 to 2011 as itself admitted by the
respondents Directorate. Learned counsel contended that the
objection/grievance, if any of the erstwhile State (now UT) was clearly of a
civil nature, to be taken cognizance of by the competent Revenue/Civil
Courts and as such, the setting in motion of the criminal machinery is
apparently actuated by mala fidies.
He further submitted that the petitioners have got a strong prima facie case
made out in their favour as they are sure to succeed in the proceedings of
this petition; that balance of convenience also tilts towards them who are
also likely to suffer an irreparable loss in terms of their liberty, reputation
and future, in case the interim relief prayed for is not granted.
Learned counsel in support of his contentions placed reliance on an
authoritative judgment of this Court passed in WP (Crl) No. 9/2024 titled
“Anil Kumar Aggarwal vs Enforcement Directorate through its Assistant
Director, Jammu”, decided on 15.03.2024, in which it has been inter alia
observed by this Court that “once investigation in FIR relating to predicate
scheduled offences is stayed, the proceedings in the said Fir would get
eclipsed. The same will definitely have a bearing upon the offences of
money laundering as the said offences owe their origin to the predicate
offences. Therefore, the said offences would also stand eclipsed till such
time the stay of investigation is in operation.” The learned counsel also
placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, High Court of
4 WP(C) No. 38/2025
Madras and the High Court of Karnataka, cited as “Vijay Mandanlal
Choudhary and others vs Union of India“, 2022 SCC Online SC 929, “B.
Shanmugam vs Karthik Dasari, Deputy Director Directorate of
Enforcement”, 2022 SCC Online Mad 4417 and “Mantri Developers Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors vs Directorate of /enforcement and another” (Writ Petition
No. 20713/2022, decided on 14.12.2022) respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on an authoritative
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited as AIR 1984 SC 718 titled “A R
Antulay vs Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another“, in which it has been
observed by the Hon’ble Court that “It is a well-established canon of
construction that the Court should read the section as it is and cannot
rewrite it to suit its convenience; nor does any canon of construction
permit the Court to read the section in such manner as it render it to some
extent otiose.”
4. Per Contra, Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI very vehemently contended
that the case FIR and the consequent Charge-sheet filed by respondents 1
and 2 does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity as the petitioners/
accused have not been discharged or acquitted in the predicate offences
which are still pending trial. He contended that the technicality of the
interim orders having been passed in the basic CBI Charge-sheet covering
the predicate offences or in the pending petitions before this Court, has not
the effect of nullifying the basic charge as the matters are sub-judice.
Learned DSGI submitted that he shall file his detailed reply/objections to
the main petition as well as in the interim application.
5 WP(C) No. 38/2025
5. Perused the interim application supported with an affidavit. Also perused
the main petition and the copies of the documents enclosed with the same
as annexures thereto. A ground appears to be made out in the opinion of the
Court for grant of interim relief.
6. List on 20.08.2025 and in the meanwhile, subject to any vacation or
modification upon the consideration of the objections/arguments of the
other side and till next date of hearing before the Bench, the proceedings on
the PMLA Prosecution Complaint bearing No. 04 of 2025, CNR No.
JKJM010016102025 arising out of ECIR/JMSZO/04/2022 dated
31.03.2022 titled “Directorate of Enforcement vs R B Educational Trust &
Ors” filed by the respondent No.2 in the Court of Special Judge Anti
Corruption, CBI cases, Jammu (Special Judge for PMLA cases) shall
remain stayed.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani)
Judge
Jammu
21.07.2025
Vijay
Vijay Kumar
2025.07.22 15:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link