Introduction

In a significant interim relief to Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday stayed criminal proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for allegedly ignoring summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the ED while hearing Soren’s Special Leave Petition challenging the refusal of the Jharkhand High Court to quash the complaint.

Background of the Case

The controversy arises from an investigation into alleged illegal land acquisition linked to documents recovered from an associate of the Chief Minister. During the probe, the ED issued multiple summons to Soren under Section 50 PMLA requiring his personal appearance.

The agency later filed a criminal complaint alleging:

Willful disobedience of summons under Section 50(4) PMLA
Punishment under Section 63(4) PMLA
Offence under Section 174 IPC (non-attendance in obedience to order from public servant)

A Ranchi Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognisance and summoned Soren. The High Court declined to interfere, stating that whether personal appearance was mandatory was a matter for trial.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Soren, argued that the prosecution was unjustified because the Chief Minister had cooperated with the investigation.

“He appeared thrice and you arrested him.”

The ED contended that Soren failed to comply with repeated summons and the quashing plea was filed belatedly after cognisance.

Court’s Observations

While granting interim stay, the Bench expressed concern over the increasing filing of criminal complaints for non-appearance in investigations.

“You have filed bulk complaints. Concentrate and spend your energy on those complaints. You will have some constructive outcomes.”

Justice Bagchi also emphasised that investigative focus should remain on effective prosecution of substantive offences rather than procedural prosecutions.

“[Focus on] effective prosecution… purpose has been served.”

The Court stayed proceedings in Complaint Case No. 3952 of 2024 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, and sought response from the ED.

This order carries broader implications beyond the individual case.

Key takeaways:

The Court signalled caution against mechanically criminalising non-appearance during investigation
Reinforces proportional use of PMLA coercive provisions
Indicates judicial scrutiny over investigative over-litigation
Protects accused persons from parallel criminal proceedings during ongoing probe

While the investigation itself continues, the ruling draws a distinction between investigative cooperation and criminal liability — a line likely to influence future PMLA enforcement strategy across the country.

The case will now be heard after the ED files its reply, and the final ruling may shape how summons compliance disputes are treated in financial crime investigations.