Read Time: 04 minutes
Amanatullah Khan filed a plea seeking to overturn the order of the trial court, dated July 31, wherein the trial court upheld the decision to issue summons to Khan based on the ED's complaint alleging non-compliance. The ED had filed their complaint arguing that Khan had intentionally disobeyed the agency's summons, a violation punishable by law.
The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, declined the plea of AAP member Amanatullah Khan praying for a stay against the ongoing proceedings for his non-compliance with summons in a money laundering case involving alleged irregularities in the Waqf Board recruitment.
The court, however, directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file their response, while listing the matter for October 28.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated that the Metropolitan Magistrate should first determine whether a case had been established and if any offense had been committed. The bench emphasized that it was not inclined to grant a stay on the proceedings and would await the ED's reply before making any further decisions.
Khan’s plea sought to overturn the city court's July 31 order, which upheld the magistrate's April 9 decision to issue a summons to Khan based on the ED's complaint alleging non-compliance. The ED had filed this complaint on April 4, invoking sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), arguing that Khan had intentionally disobeyed the agency's summons, a violation punishable by law.
Special Judge Kaveri Baweja had previously dismissed Khan’s petition, affirming that the magistrate's order was well-founded, with the complaint and accompanying documents adequately supporting the case against Khan.
In the recent court session, Khan argued that the summoning order was issued without proper judicial consideration and that his non-appearance before the ED was not intentional, as he had provided valid explanations.
During the hearing, Khan urged the court to halt the trial court proceedings, citing a Supreme Court directive from April 15, which required Khan to appear before the ED on April 18. Bhardwaj asserted that Khan had complied with the notices by appearing before the agency as instructed.
In opposition, the ED, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Zoheb Hossain, argued that Khan had evaded 14 summonses and that the order against him was legally sound and based on thorough consideration. Hossain also highlighted that the High Court had previously denied anticipatory bail to Khan, citing his non-compliance with the ED’s summons.
Please Login or Register
