The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings and the arrest of Sikandar Singh Chokker, the son of a Haryana Congress MLA, by the Enforcement Directorate (ED)
The court cited ten Supreme Court rulings in support of its decision.
On August 27, Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu ruled that there was a clear case of money laundering against Sikandar Chokker. The court deemed his petition a misuse of the legal process and law. Sikandar, son of Dharam Singh Chokker, who is a sitting Congress MLA from Samalkha, Panipat, was arrested by the ED on April 30 in Haridwar, Uttarakhand. His arrest stemmed from an ED warrant issued in connection with a money laundering case involving the alleged misappropriation of homebuyers’ funds by a company (Mahira Group) linked to him.
Although Sikandar initially cooperated with the ED, he later failed to respond to repeated summons. This led to a non-bailable warrant being issued by a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Gurugram. Similar warrants were issued against his father, Dharam Singh Chokker, and his brother, Vikas Chokker, who were co-accused in the case. Dharam Singh Chokker also initially appeared before the ED but absconded after his special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Sikandar had filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, challenging the arrest warrant and the subsequent remand. He argued that the “grounds of arrest” and “reasons to believe” were not provided in a timely manner, allegedly violating Section 19 of the PMLA. However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that substantial proceeds of crime had been identified, and the offence of money laundering was evident. The court further noted that around Rs 363 crore from over 1,500 homebuyers was misappropriated and laundered by Sikandar in collusion with other co-accused.
The High Court emphasized that its observations were not to be construed as influencing the merits of the case but were limited to this particular petition. The court upheld that due process had been followed during Sikandar’s arrest, referencing multiple Supreme Court decisions on arrest warrants and ED apprehensions.
Additionally, the court noted that Sikandar attempted to escape custody and had four other FIRs against him, demonstrating a disregard for the rule of law. The court also highlighted that Sikandar had used homebuyers’ funds to book rooms at a five-star hotel in Delhi for a family wedding.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled that Section 19 of the PMLA had been fully complied with in this case and dismissed Sikandar’s petition.
(With inputs from agency)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
