Gulshan Babbar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

11.12 He stated that as a part of fact-finding exercise, ED made enquiries with the lending banks which revealed that no predicate offence has been registered at the instance of the lender banks with any competent Law Enforcement Agency (‘LEA’) in respect of diversion of the said loan amount of Rs. 600 crores therefore, in the absence of any predicate offence the ED does not have jurisdiction to investigate the said alleged offence of money laundering. He stated that the lender banks have already initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the debtor company.

11.13 He stated that the genesis of the ECIR/GNZO/10/2021 is based on alleged proceeds of crime arising from complaints of homebuyers regarding non-delivery of booked units despite payment of booking amounts; however, the core allegations made by the Petitioners in the present writ petitions pertain to offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 470, 471, 472, and 120B of IPC, which fall outside the investigative jurisdiction of the ED.

11.14 He stated that the Petitioner’s allegations in W.P. (Crl.) No. 2595/2024 regarding an advance payment of Rs. 35 Lakh prior to the incorporation of the company is factually incorrect, as the sale deed annexed to the petition reflects a one-time payment of Rs. 70 Lakh on 11.08.2010. The allegation that Blue Planet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. executed a tri-partite agreement on 02.08.2010, prior to its incorporation on 09.08.2010, indicates possible forgery of board resolutions and fraudulent conduct an aspect falling within the jurisdiction of the SFIO, Respondent No. 3.

11.15 He further stated that the said transaction(s) have already been noted in the first prosecution complaint dated 14.01.2022 at paragraph nos. 10.6.[1] and 10.6.[6] as well as in the supplementary complaint dated 04.08.2023 at paragraph nos. 7.4.7.

11.16 He stated that SFIO is investigating the aforesaid allegation against IREO group companies vide F. No. SFIO/INV/1124/2018-19/IREO/i.

11.17 He stated that the facts set out in each of these writ petitions are within the knowledge of the investigating agency and have been investigated by the ED. He stated that after due consideration the relevant material has been placed in the prosecution complaints. He stated that only with respect to Rs. 600 crore loan transaction, the agency is not investigating the said transaction as it is not a part of any scheduled offence and thus, beyond its jurisdiction. He states that thus, these petitions ought to be dismissed.

11.18 He relies upon the written submissions handed across the bar on 20.03.2025 and the same has been taken on record. Arguments of Respondent No. 7, Lalit Goyal

12. Mr. Viraj R. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for Private Respondent No. 7 adopts the submissions made by learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 regarding the Petitioner’s lack of locus standi to maintain the present writ petitions. 12.[1] In addition to the issue of locus standi, learned senior counsel stated that the Petitioner has attempted to circumvent the limitation of not being an affected party under Article 226 of the Constitution by portraying the writ petitions as public interest litigations (PILs). However, the petitions have neither been titled nor filed in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. Accordingly, the Petitioner cannot now claim that the petitions are in the nature of PILs. 12.[2] He stated that the Petitioner has abused the process of law by filing multiple writ petitions against Respondent No. 7 and its group companies, seeking similar reliefs relating to investigation, despite being fully aware of pending inquiries. Simultaneously, the Petitioner has lodged multiple complaints before various investigating agencies based on the same cause of action. 12.[3] He submitted that the Petitioner has deliberately and intentionally attempted to mislead this Court by making false disclosures as to non-filing, advancing false statements, and misrepresenting previous orders of this Court. To substantiate his submission, he pointed to undertakings given by the Petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 862/2024 and 1219/2024, where the Petitioner claimed to be a homebuyer aggrieved by the actions of the Private Respondents and thus an affected party under Article 226. However, as a matter of fact, the Petitioner has not invested even a single penny in any of the projects launched by the Private Respondents. 12.[4] He further stated that in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1111/2024, the Petitioner has knowingly distorted and manipulated various orders passed by this Court with the intention of causing prejudice against the Private Respondents, which amounts to committing fraud upon the Court. To substantiate this submission, learned senior counsel has placed before the Court a chart at page 91 of the Convenience Compilation. 12.[5] He relies upon the written submissions dated 19.12.2024 and the convenience volume dated 19.12.2024.

13. The Respondent No. 7 has also placed on record a copy of the writ petition filed by the Petitioner herein before the Supreme Court seeking, inter alia, a direction to the ED to pursue its application before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for cancellation of bail granted to Mr. Lalit Goyal vide order dated 08.04.2022, as well as a direction for preservation of the alleged proceeds of crime, reliefs which are substantially similar to those prayed for in the present writ proceedings before this Court. However, the Petitioner, vide order dated 21.03.2025, sought and was granted leave to withdraw the said writ petition by the Supreme Court. The said writ petition and the order dated 21.03.2025 was taken on record vide order dated 27.05.2025 passed by this Court. Analysis and Findings

14. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

15. The principal issues that arise for the consideration of this Court are twofold: (i) whether Petitioner has locus standi to file the present writ petition(s); and (ii) whether the present writ petition(s) seeking similar relief(s) as to court monitored investigation are maintainable. Issue No. i: Whether Petitioner has locus standi to file the present writ petitions

16. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the present case, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed[4], wherein the Court laid down the settled principle that a person/petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must ordinarily have a personal or individual right in the subject matter. The relevant extract of the said judgement reads as under:-

Revenue, Orissa [(1967) 1 SCA 413]; Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P. [AIR 1966 SC 828: (1966) 2 SCR 172]; State of Orissa v. Rajasaheb Chandanmall [(1973) 3 SCC 739]; Satyanarayana Sinha Dr v. S. Lal & Co. [(1973) 2 SCC 696: (1973) SCC (Cri) 1002] ).” (Emphasis Supplied) 16.[1] The above principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra[5], wherein it was held that a stranger to the proceedings cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court unless he satisfies the Court that he falls within the category of a person aggrieved. While the Court recognized a limited exception in the case of genuine public interest litigation (PIL), it also cautioned against the misuse of PILs by interlopers. The relevant extract of the said judgement reads as under:- “9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024: AIR 1952 SC 12], SaghirAhmad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 728], Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044], Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460: AIR 1996 SC 2736] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [(2009) 2 SCC 784].]...... …..

14. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, “ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a visa”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam [(1980) 3 SCC 141: 1980 SCC (Cri) 649: AIR 1980 SC 856], Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [(2010) 2 SCC 114: (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324], State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal [(2010) 3 SCC 402: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 81: (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 807] and Amar Singh v. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC 69: (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 560].) …........

23. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo motu, in such respect.” 16.[2] In the conspectus of the facts emerging in the present writ petition(s), it is not in dispute that the Petitioner neither qualifies as a homebuyer nor is otherwise directly or indirectly affected by the alleged acts of corporate mismanagement and misappropriation of funds purportedly committed by Respondent No. 6 and its key managerial personnel. Consequently, the Petitioner does not fall within the category of person aggrieved so as to be entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16.[3] It is settled law that only conceivable basis on which writ petitions may be filed by a party, who is not a person aggrieved is on the anvil of Public Interest Litigation. However, in view of the admitted fact that the petitions have not been instituted in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, the captioned writ petitions are not Public Interest Litigations and, therefore, Petitioner lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain the present writ petitions. 16.[4] Further, the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay (Supra) to maintain these writ petitions for a Court monitored investigation, in the considered opinion of this Court is misconceived. While it is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that any individual may set the criminal law in motion, save where a statutory provision enacting or creating an offence provides however, the said principle of law was set out in the said judgment in the context of filing and maintaining complaints before the competent authority and not a writ petition. Paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the said judgment itself are instructive and clarifies that the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, envisages specific procedural routes, which are available to the complainant who seeks to put the criminal law into motion namely, by approaching either the Magistrate or the officer in charge of a police station. The Supreme Court in the judgement of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India[6], specifically observed that a writ petition seeking registration of a criminal complaint without the writ petitioner first availing the remedies available under the applicable law, is not maintainable. The said position was further reiterated by the Supreme Court in the judgements of Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra[7], Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar[8] and Hari Singh v. State of U.P.9. Thus, the general proposition as regards locus to approach the competent authority in a criminal complaint relied upon by the Petitioner, though correctly stated, does not assist the Petitioner in maintaining the present writ petition, which seeks Court monitored investigation. 16.[5] In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner is not seeking registration of a criminal complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings in the first instance. Rather, the prayer is for a court-monitored investigation, which is a qualitatively distinct remedy and is governed by different considerations in law. The legal considerations for the same have been discussed while deciding Issue No. ii. 16.[6] It is not disputed that the criminal law has already been set in motion: an ECIR has been registered by the ED; a prosecution complaint has been filed; and cognizance thereof has been taken by the learned Special Judge (PMLA). In view of the foregoing, the reliance placed on the judgment of A.R. Antulay (Supra) is found to be inapposite and does not support the prayer advanced by the Petitioner.

16.[7] The Issue No. i accordingly decided against the Petitioner. Issue No. ii: Whether present Petition(s) seeking similar relief(s) as to court monitored investigation are maintainable

17. The Petitioner seeks a Court monitored investigation by ED and other investigative agencies into the transactions of Respondent No. 6. ED has opposed this prayer on the ground of non-maintainability and has stated that investigation is already underway and does not suffer from any infirmity or laxity.

18. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it would be instructive to refer to the judgments settling the legal principles qua the said relief sought in these writ petition(s). It is a settled principle of law that judicial supervision over investigation is to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and where such oversight becomes imperative in the interest of justice. In the judgement of Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria10, the Supreme Court held that as long as investigation does not suffer from any vires of law that the Court should not entrust itself the task of monitoring the same. The relevant extract of the said judgement reads as under:-

monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law. It must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences. A blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual, (vide State rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma [(1997) 7 SCC 187: 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039: JT (1997) 7 SC 651] ).” 18.[1] In P. Chidambaram (Supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that the investigation is within the exclusive domain of investigating agencies and judicial intervention is unwarranted unless there is a demonstrable abuse of process. The relevant extract of the said judgement reads as under:-

67. It is one thing to say that if the power of investigation has been exercised by an investigating officer mala fide or non-compliance of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in the conduct of the investigation, it is open to the court to quash the proceedings where there is a clear case of abuse of power. It is a different matter that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, can always issue appropriate direction at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by the investigating officer mala fide and not in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, as pointed out earlier that power is to be exercised in rare cases where there is a clear abuse of power and non-compliance of the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring the interference of the High Court. In the initial stages of investigation where the Court is considering the question of grant of regular bail or pre-arrest bail, it is not for the Court to enter into the demarcated function of the investigation and collection of evidence/materials for establishing the offence and interrogation of the accused and the witnesses.” 18.[2] The above view has been further affirmed in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra11. In this judgment, the Supreme Court after taking note of all its previous judgments has summarised the principles at paragraph 13 which reads as under:

2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482CrPC.” 18.[3] This Court has perused the status report filed by SHO, P.S. Parliament Street in W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024 under the cover of index dated 17.05.2024, as well as the reply filed by the ED, Respondent No. 4 dated 20.05.2024. The written submissions handed over by ED on 20.03.2025 is also relevant. 18.[4] The said documents reveal that the ED has already registered a criminal case vide ECIR/GNZO/10/2021 under PMLA against Respondent No. 6, its group companies and its key managerial personnel. Further, a prosecution complaint dated 14.01.2022 stands filed and registered as COMA/1/2022. Its cognizance has been taken by the learned Special Court, (PMLA) Panchkula, vide order dated 21.01.2022. A supplementary prosecution complaint dated 04.08.2023 also stands filed and the learned Special Judge, (PMLA), Panchkula vide order dated 09.10.2023 has granted permission for continuation of investigation and filing of further supplementary prosecution complaint. 18.[5] ED has asserted that on the basis of its investigation, the total proceeds of crime identified till date in the instant PMLA case is Rs. 1,376 crores, which has been secured by attaching properties vide PAO no. 01/2022 dated 14.10.2022 and PAO no. 03/2024 dated 20.05.2024. 18.[6] ED has asserted that the transactions of IREO group companies complained of in all the writ petitions are to its knowledge, have been investigated and have been duly set out in the prosecution complaint dated 14.01.2022 and supplementary prosecution complaint dated 04.08.2023. 18.[7] ED has stated that the loan transaction of Rs. 60012 crores and its alleged illegal diversion though to its knowledge has not been made a part of the instant PMLA case as the lender banks have not filed any criminal complaint with any LEA and, therefore, in the absence of any registered predicate offence this transaction is not part of a scheduled offence and the provisions of PMLA cannot be invoked to investigate the said transaction. 18.[8] ED has stated that it is cognizant of all the facts mentioned in the petitions and it has already investigated the said transactions (except the loan transaction of Rs. 600 crores), which fall within its jurisdiction and placed the same in the prosecution complaint dated 14.01.2022 and supplementary prosecution complaint dated 04.08.2023. 18.[9] The submission of the Petitioner that the total proceeds of crime are Rs. 4246.22 crores and a significant portion remains unattached is not substantiated. ED has stated in its written submissions that the total proceeds of crime identified by the agency is Rs. 1,376 crores and the said amount has been secured through the issuance of two attachment orders dated 14.10.2022 and 20.05.2024 respectively.

18.10 The Petitioner in its written submissions has stated that in addition to the impact on homebuyers, the transactions by the management of IREO group companies has caused losses to the banking sector and these have been detailed in paragraph 20(a) of the written submissions. However, ED has explained that the allegations qua the misuse of loans availed from the banks are not being investigated as the banks have not filed any criminal complaint W.P. (CRL) 1111/2024 and W.P. (CRL) 1219/2024 and, therefore, in the absence of a predicate offence, ED has no jurisdiction to investigate the allegations of money laundering. The Petitioner has been unable to rebut the aforesaid submission of the ED qua lack of jurisdiction vis-à-vis the allegations of wrongful diversion of the loans availed from the banks. The Petitioner has thus failed to make out a case of inaction by the ED.

18.11 The facts placed on record reveal that ED is pursuing the investigation at the instance of the homebuyers and the same is being monitored by the learned Special Court, (PMLA), Panchkula. The Petitioner has not alleged any inaction by the ED qua the complaint of the home buyers. The ED has also placed on record facts showing that appropriate attachment orders for the identified proceeds of crime already stand issued. In these facts, the Court is of the considered opinion that no case for a further Court-monitored investigation or issuance of directions for further attachment in these proceedings by ED has been made out by the Petitioner.

18.12 The Issue No. ii accordingly decided against the Petitioner.

19. The Petitioner has impleaded SHO, P.S. Parliament Street. The said SHO has filed its status report dated 17.05.2024 and stated that all allegations raised by the Petitioner in its complaint have arisen at Gurugram, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said Police Station. The said status report has not been disputed by the Petitioner.

20. With respect to the investigation by SFIO as regards the allegations forming subject matter of W.P. (CRL) 2595/2024, this Court notes that a specific order in this regard has already been passed by the Coordinate Bench on 11.03.2020 in W.P. (CRL) 679/2020. Further, the Division Bench vide order dated 28.03.2023 passed in W.P. (CRL) 2577/2021 recorded its satisfaction with the status report filed by SFIO in those proceedings, while noting that the investigation is pending. This Court having concluded that the Petitioner has no locus standi to maintain these petitions is not inclined to issue any directions to SFIO for completing its investigation expeditiously. Additional issue: Suppression of the other proceedings in the writ petition as well as mis-representation of material facts including Court orders

21. The Petitioner has successively filed five (5) writ petitions. As per Rules, Petitioner is bound to disclose the filing and pendency of the previous petition in the successive petition. The issue of non-maintainability of the W.P. (CRL) 614/2024 stood framed on 21.05.2024. It is a matter of record that the Petitioner has failed to disclose pendency of the earlier writ petitions in the successive petitions. In fact, the Petitioner made a false declaration regarding non-filing of similar petitions. Illustratively, paragraph no. 20 of W.P. (CRL) 2595/2024 is reproduced; on this date the previously filed four petitions were pending and the issue of maintainability had been raised in each of the said petitions as on 21.05.2024; however, there is no disclosure of this material fact:

22. Respondent No. 7 has placed on record in the convenience volume a chart as document no. 4 which shows the overlap in the prayers sought by the Petitioner in these five petitions.

23. The Respondent No. 7 has also submitted that Petitioner in W.P. (CRL) 1111/2024 has misrepresented the orders of this Court in its pleading at paragraph nos. 7(4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and ground J. Respondent No. 7 has placed on record with its convenience volume a chart filed as document no. 9 along with the orders filed as document no. 10 to show the misrepresentation. This Court has perused the said chart and the orders; and this Court finds merit in the submission of the Respondent No. 7 that the Petitioner has grossly misrepresented the orders dated 18.12.202313, 14.03.202414, 26.02.202415, 19.01.202216, 28.03.202317 and 11.03.202018 passed in several writ petitions concerning IREO group companies.

24. The Petitioner also made a false statement in W.P. (CRL) 862/2024 and W.P. (CRL) 1219/2024 that he is a homebuyer and his hard-earned money has been duped by the Respondent builder. It is conceded by the Petitioner that he has made no financial investment in the IREO Projects. The said statement was made to mislead and overcome the objection of maintainability.

25. The conduct of the Petitioner in failing to disclose the filing and pendency of the earlier writ petitions, the deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the orders passed by this Court and the false assertion with respect to being a financial investor in the IREO Projects evidence that the Petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. The writ proceedings are decided on the basis of pleadings supported by affidavits affirming the truthfulness of the contents set out therein. The Petitioner has made false declarations contrary to record exhibiting no fear for violating the process of Courts with an intent to mislead the Court. The Petitioner is an Advocate by Passed in W.P. (C) 16305/2023 Passed in W.P. (Crl) 862/2024 Passed in W.P. (Crl) 614/2024 Passed in W.P. (C) 10337/2019 Passed in W.P. (Crl) 2577/2021 Passed in W.P. (Crl) 679/2020 profession and is therefore, aware about the legal processes and the obligation of the party/petitioner of deposing truthfully while filing affidavits.

26. In view of the foregoing, all the writ petitions filed by the Petitioner are dismissed on the grounds of lack of locus standi and non-maintainability.

27. Further, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) for each petition is imposed upon the Petitioner for knowingly concealing the pendency of other petitions, making a false declaration of non-filing, and misrepresenting the contents of the previous orders passed by this Court. The said total cost of Rs. 1,25,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within a period of two (2) weeks and an affidavit of compliance shall be filed by the Petitioner within one (1) thereafter.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA (JUDGE) JULY 2, 2025/ms/hp/AKT Click here to check corrigendum, if any