Arvind Kejriwal summons case: Delhi High Court asks ED to show its IO had authority to file complaint

The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to produce relevant documents to show that the investigating officer (IO) who filed a complaint against Arvind Kejriwal for allegedly skipping the ED's summons in the Delhi excise policy case, had the authority to do so. .Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, however, also orally observed that even if the IO was not authorised to file complaint, the trial court order taking cognisance of the case would not get vitiated since it is a curable irregularity and not an illegality..On the other hand, Kejriwal's counsel, Senior Advocate Rebecca John has questioned the maintainability of the criminal complaint.John submitted that while the summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were issued by one ED officer named Joginder, the complaint (for allegedly disobeying the summons) under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was filed by a different person named Sandeep Sharma.John argued that for a court to take cognizance of the matter, the complaint had to be filed by the 'public servant' concerned, who would be the officer who issued PMLA summons in this case.“The public servant concerned has not filed this complaint. There is a complete disregard to the absolute mandate of section 195 CrPC,” John submitted. She added that the summoning orders were not disobeyed and that responses were given to the IO.Even though the summoning IO was present and had not retired, the subsequent summons were sent by another officer, John submitted..Advocate Zoheb Hossain, representing the ED, countered that the complaint had been filed by a “co-investigating officer”, who qualified as a "concerned public servant” authorised to file the complaint.The Court eventually asked the ED to file relevant documents to show that the IO who filed the complaint in question against Kejriwal was eligible to file it.The matter is listed for hearing next on February 11, 2025..The Court was hearing a plea by Kejriwal challenging the ED’s summons order as well as a revisional court's order dismissing such a challenge.In the last hearing, the Court had issued notice to the ED and had refused to stay the trial proceedings..The ED had moved a court in Delhi earlier this year against Kejriwal for not complying with its summons in the Delhi excise policy case. This was before he was arrested by the ED in March. Since then, he has been released on interim bail by the Supreme Court. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Divya Malhotra of the Rouse Avenue Courts summoned Kejriwal in the matter (regarding his failure to attend ED summons) in February and March. A Sessions Court later refused to stay the ACMM's summons to Kejriwal. On September 17, the Sessions Court rejected Kejriwal's plea against orders by which the trial court had taken cognizance of the ED complaint under Section 174 of IPC.This was then challenged by Kejriwal before the High Court. .The money laundering case in which Kejriwal was summoned by the ED stems from alleged irregularities in the framing of the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy of 2021-22.The case involves allegations that several Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders including Kejriwal were involved in deliberately leaving loopholes in the excise policy in exchange for kickbacks from liquor lobbies. Both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED is investigating the case. The investigation agencies have alleged that the funds garnered from this exercise were used to fund the AAP's election campaign in Goa..Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21, and later by the CBI as well in June. The Supreme Court on July 12 granted him interim bail in the ED case. On September 13, he was granted bail in the CBI case.Following his release from the prison, Kejriwal resigned from his post of Delhi Chief Minister, and AAP leader Atishi took over the post.His party is currently preparing for the upcoming Assembly elections in the national capital.'