Delhi HC refuses to stay proceedings against Amanatullah Khan in Waqf case

The Delhi high court on Tuesday refused to stay the proceedings pending against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legislator Amanatullah Khan before the trial court for non compliance of the summons issued to him in connection with a money laundering case related to the alleged irregularities in the Delhi Waqf Board.
The court, however, sought Enforcement Directorate (ED)’s response in Khan’s petition and fixed October 28 as the next date of hearing.
“Let the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) at least decide whether a case has been made out or not. Let them see if there is any offence made out or not. You want the proceedings to be stayed? Let the reply come. I have already made it clear that I am not inclined for any kind of stay,” a bench of justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
The court was responding to Khan’s plea seeking to set aside the city court’s July 31 order. In its July 31 order, the city court upheld the magistrate court’s April 9 order issuing summons to Khan in a complaint filed by the ED alleging non-compliance of the summons by the agency in connection with the money laundering case.
ED had moved a complaint on April 4 under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) sections 190 read with Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 174 and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) section 63(4) for not complying with summons issued to him under PMLA section 50, which grants the agency power to issue summons. CrPC section 190 empowers a court to take cognisance of a complaint filed before it and issue summons to the person against whom the complaint has been filed. PMLA section 63(4) entails that a person who intentionally disobeys directions issued by the agency under PMLA section 50 shall be prosecuted under IPC section 174, which states that such a person shall be punished with imprisonment extending up to one month, or fined up to ₹500, or both.
Special judge Kaveri Baweja had ruled there was no ground to interfere with the magistrate’s April 9 order and the petition was devoid of merits. “Learned trial court has categorically observed in the impugned order that the complaint accompanied by the supporting documents discloses all the necessary ingredients constituting the offence in question and hence it clearly reflects the application of mind and proper satisfaction of the learned trial court before concluding that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner herein,” the court noted.
In his plea filed through advocates Rajat Bhardwaj and Kaustubh Khanna before the high court, the Okhla MLA, had averred that the summoning order was contrary to law as it was passed in a casual and perfunctory manner, without application of judicious mind. The plea went on to add that the court while issuing summons had failed to appreciate that his non-appearance in response to ED’s summons was not deliberate or wilful as he had provided proper and valid explanations.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Khan represented by advocate Rajat Bhardwaj urged the court to stay the proceedings before the trial court. Referring to Supreme Court’s April 15 order wherein the court had directed Khan to appear before the ED on April 18 in terms of the earlier notice, Bhardwaj contended that all the notices stood complied with when his client appeared before the probe agency.
Objecting to the stay and questioning the maintainability of the petition, ED represented by special counsel Zoheb Hossain argued that the probe agency had preferred a complaint after Khan had evaded 14 summonses. Hossain also asserted that the order was passed by proper application of mind and was not erroneous. He further submitted that the high court by way of a detailed ruling had refused to grant anticipatory bail to Khan in connection with the ED case observing that he was “non-compliant” with the summons.
ED’s probe against Khan had stemmed from a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case registered in 2016, accusing the AAP MLA of illegally appointing various people to the Delhi Waqf Board against non-sanctioned and non-existent vacancies, which caused financial loss to the Delhi government and illegal gains to himself. He is also alleged to have illegally leased out properties of the Waqf Board.