Registration of a second ECIR for distinct scheduled offences and larger conspiracy does not constitute impermissible reinvestigation.

01Facts

The petitioner, a Director of M/S Reliable Infra Services Private Limited, was subjected to search and seizure by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on 16.07.2024 under ECIR/PTZO/4/2024 (ECIR-4), which originated from an FIR involving allegations of rape and cheating against public servants.

pp. 4-5

Subsequently, based on petitioner’s statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, the ED shared information with state authorities under Section 66(2).

p. 6

This led to a "Second FIR" and "Third FIR" (PS Case No. 05/2025) alleging a larger conspiracy of rigging government tenders and bribery.

pp. 7-9

Consequently, ED registered a new ECIR/PTZO/13/2025 (ECIR-13).

p. 10

The petitioner sought quashing of ECIR-13, quashing of summons, and quashing of his prior statements (dated July–October 2024), arguing they were self-incriminating and obtained through coercion.

pp. 2-3, 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether an ECIR is a statutory document akin to an FIR and maintainable for quashing under Article 226

p. 57, 58

ii.2. Whether the registration of a second ECIR (ECIR-13) on the same factual substratum as ECIR-4 is legally permissible

p. 56

iii.3. Whether statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are hit by the bar against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) or require "Miranda Warnings" and Section 164 CrPC safeguards

p. 63, 67

iv.4. Whether a private individual can be prosecuted for PMLA offences arising from the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act

p. 74

03Law Applied

The Court relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 1, which established that ECIR is an internal department document, not a statutory one, and that PMLA authorities are not "police officers," rendering Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 25 of the Evidence Act inapplicable to Section 50 statements.

p. 57, 65

It applied Section 66(2) of the PMLA regarding the mandatory duty to share information with other agencies.

p. 43, 73

It further cited Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 regarding the "test of sameness" for second FIRs.

p. 28, 61

The court cited State v. Jitender Kumar Singh (2014) 11 SCC 724, confirming that private individuals can be tried for PC Act offences.

p. 43, 74

Provisions in the judgment · 57 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 61 Section 318 Section 338 Section 340 Section 183

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 15 provisions

Section 41 Section 154 Section 155 Section 156 Section 157 Section 160 Section 161 Section 162 Section 164 Section 166 Section 169 Section 170 Section 173 Section 281 Section 482

Customs Act,1962 Section 108

Indian Penal Code, 1860 10 provisions

Section 34 Section 193 Section 228 Section 313 Section 323 Section 346 Section 376 Section 420 Section 504 Section 506

Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 67

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 36

Official Secrets Act, 1923 Section 3 Section 6 Section 15

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 Section 12 Section 13

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 15 provisions

Section 2 Section 3 Section 5 Section 8 Section 13 Section 17 Section 18 Section 24 Section 44 Section 48 Section 50 Section 63 Section 65 Section 66 Section 71

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that since an ECIR is an internal document and not a statutory one, it cannot be quashed like an FIR under Article 226 unless the predicate offence itself is quashed.

p. 59

Regarding "evergreening," the Court found that ECIR-13 was distinct from ECIR-4 as it involved different scheduled offences and a larger conspiracy unearthed during the investigation.

p. 60, 62

The Court rejected the "Miranda Rights" argument, holding that the Indian legal system provides sufficient statutory safeguards and that Section 164(4) CrPC apply only to "accused" persons, whereas the petitioner was not yet formally arraigned when his statements were recorded.

p. 67, 68

The Court further noted that further investigation does not require prior judicial permission unless the trial has commenced, and that the ED was legally obligated under Section 66(2) to share incriminating data with the Vigilance Unit.

p. 73

05Holding

The Court held that (i) ECIR-13 is not liable to be quashed as it pertains to distinct offences and larger conspiracy; (ii) Summons issued under Section 50 are part of the investigative process and do not infringe fundamental rights per se; (iii) Statements under Section 50 are valid as the petitioner was not an "accused" at the time of recording; and (iv) the PMLA proceedings against a private contractor for aiding corruption are maintainable.

p. 62, 71, 72, 67, 75

The Court dismissed the writ petition and all interim reliefs and challenges to the summons were rejected.

p. 75, 72

LawLens.Patna High Court

Original Court PDF