Today, On 16th December, Granting relief to Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, a Delhi court dismissed the ED’s PMLA complaint in the National Herald case. The court held the proceedings not maintainable since they arose from a private complaint, not an FIR registered.
A Delhi court declined to take cognizance of the National Herald money laundering case involving Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Court determined that the complaint submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was inadmissible, as it was based on a private complaint rather than a First Information Report (FIR).
In addition to the Gandhis, the complaint implicated Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise, and Sunil Bhandari.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Court ruled that the complaint submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not valid, as it stemmed from a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy before a magistrate, rather than a First Information Report (FIR).
The Court stated,
“Since the present prosecution complaint pertaining to the offence money laundering is founded on cognisance and summoning order upon a complaint under Section 200 CrPC filed by a public person, namely Dr Subramanian Swamy, and not upon an FIR, cognizance of the present complaint is impermissible in law,”
The Court highlighted that the ED can only pursue a money laundering case if there is an FIR related to an offence specified in the PMLA schedule.
The Court explained as it dismissed the complaint against the Gandhis,
“An investigation and the consequent prosecution complaint pertaining to the offence of money laundering defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 is not maintainable in the absence of a FIR or the offence mentioned in the Schedule to the Act,”
Additionally, the Court noted that, given the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has now registered an FIR in this case, it would be premature to address the ED’s submissions regarding the merits of the allegations.
The Court ordered,
“Cognizance of the offence defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 is declined. The complaint is dismissed,”
It further mentioned that, since the FIR has been registered by the Delhi Police and the ED has indicated that the investigation is ongoing, the ED is welcome to present additional submissions if they wish.
The ED accused them of laundering ‘proceeds of crime’ allegedly arising from the fraudulent acquisition of assets owned by Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the publishers of National Herald, valued at over Rs.2,000 crore.
Young Indian, a company in which the Gandhis are majority shareholders, was at the center of these allegations.
According to the ED, the transfer of AJL shares to Young Indian was part of a criminal conspiracy aimed at unlawfully seizing AJL’s assets. The allegations suggest that the value of these shares, the immovable properties of AJL, and their rental income constitute the alleged proceeds of crime.
However, the Gandhis argued that the case is unique and unprecedented because accusations of money laundering have been made absent any misuse or misrepresentation of the property involved.
Throughout the proceedings, the Congress leaders contested the ED’s claims, asserting that Young Indian was not used to illegally acquire AJL’s assets, but rather the loan facilitated AJL’s transition to being debt-free.
The National Herald case originated from a private complaint filed by former Union Minister Subramanian Swamy, who accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and the Gandhi family-controlled Young Indian of offenses including cheating, criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, and misappropriation of property.
The ED submitted a prosecution complaint against the Gandhis and others on April 15 this year.
Representing the ED were Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, and Special Public Prosecutor NK Matta, along with several other advocates. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and RS Cheema, among others, defended Sonia and Rahul Gandhi.
Suman Dubey was represented by advocates Sushil Bajaj and Alka Chohar, while Sam Pitroda’s defense included advocates Kuber Boddh and Manica Singh Avijit.
Young Indian had representation from Senior Advocate Madhav Khurana and others, and Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey along with several advocates appeared for Dotex Merchandise. For Sunil Bhandari, advocates Sowjhanya Shankaran and Siddharth Satija provided legal representation.