HC refuses interim relief to TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee in PMLA case

The Delhi High Court Tuesday refused to grant any interim relief to TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife seeking quashing of summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case linked to an alleged coal scam in West Bengal.

Justice Yogesh Khanna issued notice on the petition and asked the ED to respond to the plea by Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee within three days and listed the matter for further hearing on September 27.

"Let me be very clear. I am not granting any stay. I am issuing notice, you file your reply. Then only I can pass an order," the judge said, adding that he was not granting any interim relief.

Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee, who were asked by the agency to personally appear before it in Delhi today along with a voluminous set of documents, have contended that they are residents of Kolkata and should not be compelled to join the probe here.

Abhishek Banerjee, nephew of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, and his wife have challenged the September 10 summons and also sought to direct the ED not to summon them for their appearance in Delhi.

The 33-year-old MP represents the Diamond Harbour seat in Lok Sabha and is the national general secretary of the Trinamool Congress (TMC).

The ED opposed the plea saying money laundering has national and trans-national ramifications and its investigation is not restricted to any police station or area.

When the judge made it clear that he was not granting any interim relief, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Banerjee couple, said till then the agency should not be proceeding because the high court is seized of the matter.

"We were asked to appear before ED today. We have given the documents to the agency but we are not appearing in person. I hope no coercive action will be taken," he said.

However, the court once again refused to grant any interim protection.

Sibal further said he was not asking for any stay and he was only saying that they can do the questioning in West Bengal.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, opposed the plea for interim relief saying if they have any apprehensions, they can take the appropriate remedy.

During the hearing which went on for three hours, Sibal said Banerjee was called and appeared before the agency several times and he was also grilled on September 6 for 10-11 hours and contended that the ED was entitled to investigate but it should not harass him like this.

He also said that before the summons reached Banerjee, it was leaked to the media and it seemed to be a malafide and a completely fishing and roving inquiry and "this is how the system is being used to denigrate us".

"They cannot call us to Delhi. We must be investigated within the precincts of the police station where the alleged offense was committed. All this is in West Bengal. The woman has to be interrogated at her house. They are most welcome to interrogate us in the jurisdiction of West Bengal," Sibal argued.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, also representing the ED, said under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act (PMLA), there is no territorial jurisdiction for carrying out investigation and there are no territorial limits unlike under the CrPC, where a police officer cannot go beyond his territorial jurisdiction.

"There is no police station for PMLA. Entire India is a police station for PMLA. On facts of the case, Abhishek Banerjee is a resident of Delhi and he has a Delhi address. He is an MP and attends the Parliament regularly. We have proof to show that the date when his wife replied she is in Patna and cannot come to Delhi for questioning she was in a beauty parlor in Delhi," he argued.

He added that a woman can be called to the police station and there is nothing wrong with it and even otherwise, it is the ED office where she has been called for questioning and cannot be equated to a police station.

Mehta also submitted money laundering has trans-border implications and malafide is no ground in criminal investigation and it has no role to play unless you allege malafide against a particular officer.

When the ED counsel said the issue raised in the petition is pending before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's advocate said it was not the same after which the high court asked the parties to place the details before it.

When the court asked Banerjee's counsel as to what he has to say on the ED's submission that the MP is a resident of Delhi, Sibal said "I am a Member of Parliament and have been given a place to stay in South Avenue so when I need to come here, I need a place to reside. Documents will show that we are not residents of Delhi," he said.

The plea has said a greater degree of protection is granted to a woman under Section 160 of the CrPC, which mandates that she shall not be required to attend any place other than where she resides.

The ED lodged a case under the provisions of the PMLA based on a November 2020 FIR registered by the CBI that alleged a multi-crore coal pilferage scam related to Eastern Coalfields Ltd mines in the state's Kunustoria and Kajora areas in and around Asansol.

Local coal operative Anup Majhi alias Lala is alleged to be the prime suspect in the case. The ED had claimed that the TMC MP was a beneficiary of funds obtained from this illegal trade. He has denied all charges.