ECIR Cannot Be Quashed At Threshold As It Is An Internal ED Document: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court on 18 May held that an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is an internal document of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and cannot ordinarily be subjected to quashing, observing that such a plea is premature unless it translates into a prosecution complaint or other actionable proceedings.

Justice Arun Kumar Jha dismissed a writ petition filed by Rishu Shree seeking to quash ECIR-13 and ECIR-14 and restrain the ED from taking coercive steps for alleged conspiracy involving manipulation of government tenders and bribery of public officials. The Bench held:

“If ECIR is an internal document of the department, no question arises for quashing the same as the said document is akin to private document created for initiation of a proceeding and it may be so that no proceeding might be initiated pursuant to the said document and the proceeding may even be dropped. Therefore, a person, as a matter of right, cannot claim quashing of ECIR by filing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

Shree had approached the Court challenging ED proceedings initiated under the PMLA, including summons issued under Section 50. The matter arose from a 2023 FIR registered in Patna alleging offences of rape, cheating and criminal conspiracy against former Bihar bureaucrat Sanjeev Hans and others. Treating offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as scheduled offences, the ED registered ECIR-4.

In July 2024, the ED conducted searches at premises linked to Shree, including the office of Reliable Infra Services Private Limited, where he was allegedly a Director. His statements were recorded multiple times, which he later alleged were obtained under coercion and contained incorrect assertions.

According to the ED, the statements revealed a larger conspiracy involving manipulation of government tenders, bribery of public officials and routing of illicit funds through contractors. Based on ED inputs, Bihar vigilance authorities registered a further FIR relating to corruption and offences under the Official Secrets Act.

Subsequently, the ED registered ECIR-13 and issued fresh summons. Shree contended that ECIR-13 amounted to a parallel ECIR arising from the same set of transactions already covered under ECIR-4.

After the Supreme Court declined to entertain his writ petition and granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum, Shree moved the High Court challenging ECIR-13 and related proceedings.

The ED opposed the plea, arguing that an ECIR is only an internal administrative document and does not amount to an FIR, and therefore cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction, particularly when no prosecution complaint has yet been filed.

The petitioner also invoked “Miranda warnings”, contending that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA violated protections against self-incrimination. The ED countered that Miranda principles, being part of United States jurisprudence, have no application in India.

The Court distinguished between an ECIR and an FIR, observing that ECIR does not itself initiate prosecution proceedings and may not necessarily culminate in any action. It held that writ courts cannot ordinarily entertain a prayer for quashing at this stage. It added:

“Unless, ECIR takes the shape of prosecution complaint or FIR, it would remain an internal document of the department and in absence of specific details showing similarity or sameness with previous FIR, the petitioner cannot ask for quashing the ECIR-13. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is premature at this point of time and cannot be looked into by this Court on some perceived apprehension of the petitioner.”

On the issue of parallel ECIRs, the Court observed that multiple FIRs may be subsumed within a single ECIR and that separate ECIR investigations are not barred in law. It further noted that ECIR-13 also involved additional accused persons and that Shree was not an accused in the earlier FIRs and rejected his challenge on this ground.

On the reliance placed on Miranda rights, the Court held that such principles have no application in the Indian legal system, as statutory safeguards against self-incrimination already exist.

Accordingly, the High Court concluded that courts should not ordinarily interfere with ongoing investigations and dismissed the writ petition.

For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Nandita Rao, Advocates Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Akhand Pratap Singh, Kumaresh Singh, Ujjwal Raj, Manavi Tyagi, Divyodit, Shruti, Tannavi Sharma, Sidak Singh Anand, Khushboo Jain, Sahil Kumar, Anirvan Choudhuri and Jyoti Prakash

For ED: Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, Retainer Counsel Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocates Pranjal Tripathi and Raghav Kumar

For Vigilance: Advocate Vishal Kumar Singh and Arvind Kumar, Special PP