The Himachal Pradesh High Court has declined its jurisdiction to quash the arrest order passed under the Prevention of money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the case of freezing of minerals worth Rs. 62.14 lakhs by the GST department.
The bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma has observed that this Court as such would be denuded of jurisdiction to entertain the arrest having taken place at New Delhi and ECIR having been lodged in Delhi, merely because initially there was some notice of FIRs in the jurisdiction of this Court and a raid was carried out which has led to the trail of proceeds of crime, as such would not bring it within the ambit of part of cause of action by which this Court would test the merits as such of the arrest order.
In the case of illegal mining by the petitioner, who is proprietor of M/s Jai Maa Jawala Stone crusher situated in Kangra District (H.P.); and partner in other mining crushers; and accused of generating proceeds of crime from the illegal sand and mineral mining in this State and Uttar Pradesh (village Bartha, PS Behat, District Saharanpur, where Garhwal Stone Crusher was acquired and being run by the petitioner and others).
The proceeds of crime have been laundered through investments in properties and businesses including purchase of Garhwal Stone Crusher, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, the amount of proceeds of crime was 4.70 crores and a significant portion of the payment i.e. Rs.1.60 crores was made in unaccounted cash derived from illegal mining activities, which was being done in the basin of Yamuna River and proceeds from the River basin of Beas. Search proceedings also revealed that on 20.06.2024, the State GST Department had seized excess River Bed Minerals (RBM) to the tune of Rs. 62.14 Lakhs from the official premise of Garhwal Stone Crusher and the addendum to the ECIR had been made by including the scheduled offences under Sections 413, 417, 418, 424, 471 and 120-B and subsuming the F.I.R in the ECIR.
Prior to the arrest on 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-32), the predicate offence had already been committed in Saharanpur (UP), leading to lodging of F.I.R No. 360/2024 on 7.11.2024 and part of cause of action has arisen in the State of UP.
The court while dismissing the petition held that merely because the petitioners went to the Apex Court and withdrew the Writ Petition (Cr) bearing No. 5154 of 2024 on 13.12.2024 on his own volition, by making a statement that they would be given liberty to approach this Court, (Himachal Pradesh High Court) would not grant this Court jurisdiction in the absence of the fact that arrest as such was never made within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Case Details
Case Title: Gian Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2 of 2025
Date: 11/04/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Diya Bhagwan, Ms. Mannat Bir Kaur and Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocates.
Counsel For Respondent: Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General
