Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 127097 (ALL)

RAJEEV NAYAN MISHRA v. U.O.I. MINISTRY OF FINANCE THRU. SECY. MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER

CRLP/1913/2025 · 2025-03-10

Ajai Kumar Srivastava I, Vivek Chaudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14456-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1913 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajeev Nayan Mishra Respondent :- U.O.I. Ministry Of Finance Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance New Delhi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Devesh Jaiswal,Piyush Tripathi,Vipul Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/Union of India and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/E.D. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) bearing No.ECIR/LKZO/10/2024 dated 30.04.2024 lodged by the opposite party no.2 so far as it relates to the petitioner after summoning the same. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has challenged the entire proceedings on the ground that show cause notice dated 11.09.2024 on the basis of which the proceedings are initiated is not having along with the same all the documents on the basis of which it was issued. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/Directorate of Enforcement submits that Enforcement Directorate is relying upon its order dated 10.09.2024 titled as "Recording of Reasons U/S 8(1) of PMLA 2002 by the Adjudicating Authority" and the same is duly annexed along with the notice. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/Directorate of Enforcement further submits that in this case an attachment order has already been passed on 16.01.2025 which is not challenged specifically in the present writ petition. It is further stated that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the said order. The petitioner can raise all his grievances with regard to procedural defects also including validity of the notice in the said case. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner prays to withdraw present writ petition with liberty as aforesaid to challenge the said order and proceedings in the appeal. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is consigned to record as withdrawn. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.) (Vivek Chaudhary,J.) Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Arjun/- Digitally signed by :- ARJUN PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench