The Punjab & Haryana High Court has put the stay granted by the Special Judge, PMLA, Panchkula, on proceedings in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case against M3M Group Director Roop Kumar Bansal and other accused on hold till July 30.
According to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Roop Bansal and 51 others are accused under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA for money laundering offences. The case is being tried before the Special Court in Panchkula.
"Meanwhile, operation of the impugned order shall remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing," said Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul while adjourning the case to July 30.
The ED challenged the February 11, 2025, order of the Special Judge, which stayed the prosecution solely because FIR No.14 (dated March 12, 2024), registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi, is still under investigation and no chargesheet has been filed.
“The trial court acted beyond its jurisdiction under both the PMLA and CrPC,” argued ED’s Special Counsel Zoheb Hussain and Senior Panel Counsel Lokesh Narang. They stated that neither law allows staying a criminal trial and no inherent powers like Section 151 of the CPC apply here.
They further emphasized that “explanation (i) to Section 44 of the PMLA permits prosecution to continue regardless of the status of the scheduled offence.”
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Quashes Land Allotment for Hostel, Cites Illegal Diversion from School Use
The ED also noted that the court previously incorporated FIR No.14 into the prosecution complaint under Section 311 of the CrPC, and had earlier rejected requests to drop proceedings on similar grounds.
“Out of 32 predicate FIRs, FIR No.14 is still under active investigation but hasn’t been quashed or stayed. Thus, staying proceedings because the investigation is pending contradicts the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) 10 SCC 60,” ED counsel added.
Read Also:- Village Policemen Not Equal To Home Guards: Allahabad High Court Refuses Relief On Pay Parity
The ED cited Supreme Court rulings in S. Martin v. Directorate of Enforcement and Mahabir Prasad Rungta v. Directorate of Enforcement, which allowed PMLA trials to run alongside pending predicate offence cases, subject only to a bar on pronouncing judgment.
They also referenced a decision in M/s IREO Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, where the High Court upheld that FIRs registered based on ED input remain valid and ECIRs and complaints stand independently from FIR statuses.
"Staying trials under PMLA merely because predicate FIRs are under investigation defeats the very objective of swift prosecution of financial crimes," ED asserted.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Youth for Reselling IPL Tickets
The High Court has now held the Special Judge’s stay in abeyance until July 30, allowing further legal scrutiny on the issue.
Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Special Counsel (through VC) and Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Counsel, GOI for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Manmeet Singh Nagpal, Advocate and Mr. Gulshan Sachdev, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT V/S ROOP KUMAR BANSAL AND OTHERS
