The Supreme Court verbally observed on Monday that it will need to start quashing frivolous money laundering cases in the same way that it handles false cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, Bar and Bench reported. This section deals with cruelty against a woman by her husband or her relatives.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih also said that it might have to begin recording observations on the conduct of Enforcement Directorate officers in such cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

“On a lighter vein, do you know how do we approach quashing petitions in cruelty cases [under Section 498A?” Oka asked, according to Bar and Bench. “We have observed that this provision is misused and we quash.”

He said that “this would be approach of the court” if the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is invoked in a similar manner. “Judges are also humans,” Oka said. “They are speaking everyday of how PMLA [Prevention of Money Laundering Act] is being used.”

The bench made the observations as it heard a petition filed by retired Indian Administrative Service officer Anil Tuteja challenging the refusal of the Chhattisgarh High Court on August 20 to quash cases registered against him in connection with an alleged Rs 2,000-crore liquor scam in the state.

While the state Anti-Corruption Bureau had registered a case against Tuteja under charges pertaining to cheating, forgery, bribery, among others, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Enforcement Directorate had filed a money laundering case, according to Bar and Bench.

The Supreme Court issued notice on his petition on September 10.

At Monday’s proceedings, the bench flagged the manner in which the Enforcement Directorate had summoned Tuteja in the matter, Bar and Bench reported.

“You [central agency] summoned to him to appear at 12 noon,” Oka said. “Those summons were actually served after 12 noon. Those persons were at ACB [Anti-Corruption Bureau] office and in that office only you summon them to appear in ED [Enforcement Directorate] office at 5.30 pm.”

The bench questioned how the central agency could do this. “Why should ED officers accompany these persons from ACB to ED office?” Oka asked “Why they are accompanying and what was the hurry? This is not the way to arrest a person.”

The court also questioned the hurry in summoning Tuteja when the investigation of the Anti-Corruption Bureau was pending, according to Bar and Bench.

“How are they [Enforcement Directorate] summoning people like this?” the bench asked. “We want this person who has issued summons to be present in court.”

The central agency, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, told the court that the official who had issued the summons had resigned.

Subsequently, the court said that it expected a better affidavit from the Enforcement Directorate, adding that it would otherwise have to make adverse observations about the conduct of its officers. The case will be heard next on November 5.

In April, the top court had quashed another money-laundering case against Tuteja and his son Yash Tuteja in the alleged scam.

The Enforcement Directorate had initiated proceedings in the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act during the tenure of the previous Bhupesh Baghel-led Congress government in Chhattisgarh.

The central agency had alleged that a syndicate comprising state government officials, politicians and other individuals had conspired to ensure that a state-run company procured liquor only from those who paid it a commission of Rs 75 per case of country liquor. It alleged that the syndicate pocketed more than Rs 2,000 crore that would have otherwise gone to the state exchequer.

Also read: Forced counselling, moralising: The difficulties of filing dowry harassment cases under Section 498A