Delhi HC Upholds Legality of Supplementary PMLA Complaint Despite Lack of Extensive New Material [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court upholds ED’s supplementary PMLA complaint despite the absence of extensive new material, finding no procedural illegality.In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the legality of a supplementary complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), even though it did not include extensive new material.

Sanjay Bhandari, a businessman, filed a writ petition challenging the supplementary complaint and summons issued by the Special PMLA Court. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the ED’s supplementary complaint added no fresh evidence and was simply a repetition of earlier claims.

The counsel argued that this amounted to an abuse of process and that the Special Court had issued a summons without proper application of mind. They also claimed that this action violated his right to fair legal procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Read More: Blocked GST ITC u/r 86A Must Be Released if Appeal is Filed by Depositing 10% Disputed Tax: Madras HC [Read Order]

The Enforcement Directorate’s counsel argued that the supplementary complaint was valid under Section 44 of the PMLA and was filed to reflect ongoing investigations, including pending letters rogatory with foreign jurisdictions.

They argued that the complaint helped ensure continuity in prosecution and complied with all procedural requirements. It was further argued that the Special Court had acted within its powers when issuing a summons and that the petitioner had other remedies available under the law.

Complete Clause by Clause Checklist for Form 3CD, Click Here

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that the law does not prohibit filing a supplementary complaint even if it contains limited new material, as long as it serves a valid procedural or legal purpose.

Read More: Arrest Over ₹8.36 Crore Fake ITC Claim Using Bogus GST Invoices: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail Citing Completed Investigation and Five Month Custody [Read Order]

The court found that the complaint was not filed in bad faith, and the Special Court had not acted mechanically while taking cognizance or issuing summons. The court further observed that no fundamental rights of the petitioner had been violated and that the proper forum for raising objections was before the trial court.

The court held that the supplementary complaint was legally maintainable and that the petitioner’s arguments did not justify interference under writ jurisdiction. The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to follow due process before the Special PMLA Court.