The Supreme Court on February 25 stayed further proceedings in a criminal complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren over alleged non-compliance with summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stayed proceedings in Complaint Case No. 3952 of 2024, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
Notice issued in Soren’s SLP against Jharkhand High Court order
The Court granted interim protection while issuing notice to the ED in Soren’s Special Leave Petition (SLP). Soren has challenged the Jharkhand High Court’s refusal to quash the complaint proceedings.
The High Court had held that the question of whether Soren needed to appear personally involves disputed facts. It said the issue should be examined during trial.
What the ED told the Supreme Court
The ED argued that Soren did not appear despite seven summonses.
It also submitted that Soren approached the High Court belatedly—about one year after the Magistrate took cognisance.
What Soren told the Court
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Soren, contested the ED’s claims.
“He appeared thrice and you arrested him,” Rohatgi told the Court.
Court’s oral remarks on prosecution priorities
While staying the proceedings, the CJI orally addressed the ED.
“Yesterday we were reading in newspaper, you (ED) have filed bulk complaints. Concentrate and spend your energy on those complaints. You will have some constructive outcomes,” the CJI remarked.
Justice Bagchi also emphasised effective prosecution, indicating that the “purpose has been served.”
Background of the ED case
The ED’s case arose from proceedings involving Soren’s associate. The agency claims it recovered documents linked to 8.86 acres of land, which it alleges belonged to the Chief Minister.
During the investigation, the ED issued summons to Soren under the PMLA to record his statement about the alleged land transactions.
The ED later arrested Soren on January 31, 2024.
Provisions cited by the ED
The ED alleged wilful disobedience of summons under Section 50(4) PMLA. It invoked Section 63(4) PMLA, read with Section 174 IPC, claiming that non-compliance obstructed a money laundering investigation.
Based on the complaint and supporting material, the CJM, Ranchi found a prima facie case under Section 174 IPC and issued a summoning order.
Case details
HEMANT SOREN v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, THROUGH DEOVRAT JHA, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
