Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: T.P. (Crl.) No. 29/2025
Enforcement Directorate vs Ram Kishore Arora & Ors.
14.05.2025
Present: Sh. N.K. Matta (through VC) and Sh. Manish Jain
(through VC), Ld. Special PPs for DoE along with
Sh. Rohit Singh Bora, Ms. Mimansa Pragya, Sh.
Sidharth Kuhar, Ld. Counsels for DoE and Sh.
Mohit Godara, Assistant Director/IO and Sh. Vikas
Yadav, EO.
Sh. Arun Khatri, Ms. Shelly Dixit, Ms. Anushka
Bhalla and Sh. Nishant Hooda, Ld. Counsels for the
applicant/accused.
Heard on the application for transfer.
Ld. Counsel submitted that in the present case the
Enforcement Directorate (herein after being referred to as
complainant) initially filed complaint against ten persons. Later
on, a supplementary complaint was filed, wherein the present
applicant was arraigned as Accused No. 11. Ld. Counsel
submitted that according to the complainant, the alleged offence
was committed in the year 2014. Ld. Counsel submitted that the
applicant herein was Minister and MLA from 2009 to 2014 in the
State of Haryana and again from 2019 to 2024 he was MLA.
Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Apex Court
of the land in the case of
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of
India & Anr, W.P (C) 699/2016, issued directions with the
objective of expeditious disposal of the cases involving sitting
and former MPs/MLAs. In accordance with the directions,
Special Courts were constituted to deal with such cases.
Ld. Counsel submitted that as the applicant herein
was MLA at the relevant time, hence, this case (
i.e. Ct. Case
-- 1 of 4 --
88/2023 titled Directorate of Enforcement vs Ram Kishore Arora
& Ors having ECIR No. 21/STF/2021 pending in the Court of
Sh. Sumit Dass, Ld. ASJ-05, New Delhi District, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi) is also required to be transferred to the Court
dealing with the cases of MPs/MLAs constituted at Rouse
Avenue District Court, New Delhi.
Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon
the judgment of
Manjinder Singh Sirsa vs State of NCT of Delhi
and Anr, Crl. M.C. 9128/2023 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
The relied upon paras of the said judgment are
reproduced as under:
“21. In this Court’s opinion, when the aforesaid orders dated
01.11.2017, 04.12.2018, 05.03.2020 and 31.08.2020 are read
together, it becomes clear that the Special Courts were
constituted for dealing with cases against the legislators i.e.
MPs or MLAs, whether sitting or former.
22. Therefore, the necessary inference that can essentially be
drawn up from the above-mentioned reading of the four
orders, would lead to a conclusion that the Special Courts
were constituted to try offences alleged against sitting or
former MPs/MLAs, and the Hon’ble Apex Court nowhere
has observed that the Special Courts shall try only those
offences where accused was a sitting MP/MLA, at the time
of commission of offence.
23. In the aforesaid legal scenario, this Court is of the firm
opinion that it cannot go beyond the mandate of the Hon’ble
Apex Court, and when the terminology used while passing
directions in case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra) is
perused, it becomes clear that the Hon’ble Apex Court
clearly refers to “former MPs/MLAs” without carving out
any specific differentiation among “former MPs/MLAs”.
Consequently, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to interpret the
decision in a manner that deviates from the clear directions
of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In other words, this Court cannot
read something, in between the lines, which is neither the
intent nor the content, finding or even obiter of the Hon’ble
Apex Court.”
It is prayed that in view of the settled law, this case
be withdrawn from that Court and be assigned to designated
-- 2 of 4 --
Court at Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant does not dispute the
fact of applicant being MLA during the relevant period. It is
submitted that when the complaint was filed he was not the MLA
and secondly, that this Court has no jurisdiction to transfer this
file from one District to other District.
It is prayed that application be dismissed.
Keeping in view the submissions and facts and also
the judgment passed in the case of Manjinder Singh Sirsa (supra),
wherein it has been held that the cases pertaining to the sitting
MPs/MLAs as well as former MPs/MLAs have to be tried by the
Special Court constituted for dealing with the cases of
MPs/MLAs. Therefore, I do not find any force in this contention
that that he was not MLA at the time when the complaint was
filed and hence this case is not to be heard by the Special Court
designated for MPs/MLAs.
So far as the next contention that this Court has no
jurisdiction to transfer case from one District to other District, I
agree with the same. But as the case is to be heard by the Special
designated Court, which sits in Rouse Avenue District Court and
not by the Court which is presently dealing with the matter,
hence, this matter (
i.e. Ct. Case 88/2023 titled Directorate of
Enforcement vs Ram Kishore Arora & Ors having ECIR No.
21/STF/2021 pending in the Court of Sh. Sumit Dass, Ld. ASJ-
05, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi) be
placed before the Registrar General, Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi with the request to kindly issue necessary directions
regarding transfer of this matter to the Court concerned having
jurisdiction to hear the same.
-- 3 of 4 --
Parties are directed to appear before Registrar
General, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 19.05.2025.
Ahlmad concerned is directed to send complete file
in all respect before Registrar General, Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi on or before 19.05.2025.
T.P. (Crl.) No. 29/2025 titled Enforcement
Directorate vs Ram Kishore Arora & Ors is accordingly stands
disposed off.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Virender Kumar Bansal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts/ND/14.05.2025
-- 4 of 4 --