While taking a most pragmatic step, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sachin Dev Duggal vs Directorate of Enforcement in CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 & CRL.M.A. 16540/2023, 16542/2023, 6462/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:11624 that was reserved on 22-09-2025 and then finally pronounced on 19-12-2025 has minced absolutely just no words whatsoever to hold in no uncertain term that a court cannot issue non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against a person merely for non-compliance with summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Sharma mandated that NBWs can only be issued by a court on the request of an investigating agency under Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We also need to note that the Delhi High Court made the key observations while setting aside the non-bailable warrants that had been issued against UK-based entrepreneur Sachin Dev Duggal in an ED money-laundering investigation linked to the Videocon group and bank fraud case. To put it differently, after perusing the facts of the case and the material on record, the Delhi High Court cancelled the NBWs, observing that the Trial Court had not exercised the powers as per the provisions of the CrPC. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Sharma of the Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth the purpose of the petition in para 1 stating that, “The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) seeks the following prayers: –
“A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 09.06.2023 in Misc DJ ASJ 98/2023 thereby quashing nonbailable warrants as issued against the Petitioner vide order dated 10.02.2023 Misc DJ ASJ 35/2023 as being bad in law and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, And/or
B) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.””
While continuing in the same vein, the Bench then observes in para 2 that, “The petitioner, who is a citizen of England, United Kingdom, has preferred the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 whereby, the learned Special Judge, (PC Act), (CBI)-16, Rouse Avenue District Courts, declined to cancel the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner vide order dated 10.02.2023.”
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 3 disclosing that, “The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi registered an FIR No. RC2172020A0002 on 23.06.2020 under Sections 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PC Act’) against Shri Venugopal Dhoot and one unknown officer of the Consortium of Banks led by the State Bank of India.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that, “As the offences alleged in the aforesaid FIR were scheduled offences, the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement (for short, ‘ED’) registered an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/HQ/08/2020 on 30.06.2020. The case of the respondent/ED is as under: –
4.1. During investigation, it was revealed that M/s Videocon Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, ‘VIL’) had raised foreign currency loan for the appraisal and development of Oil and Gas assets (Mozambique, Brazil Indonesia, Australia, and East Timor), through its overseas company Jupitor Corporation from July 2009 against Standby Letter of Credit (‘SBLC facilities’) issued by the Indian lender banks.
4.2. During investigation, it was subsequently revealed that in 2008, M/s Videocon Hydro Carbon Holdings Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, ‘VHHL’), a wholly owned step-down subsidiary of M/s Videocon Industries Ltd. (‘VIL’) required 10% participating interest in oil and gas assets in Rovuma area, 1 Block, Mozambique, from M/s Anadarko, which is a US petroleum company. Shri Venugopal Dhoot, was the Chairman and Managing Director of VIL and VHHL. Further, VHHL was registered at Cayman Islands and was dealing with the oil and gas business and having oil and gas assets in Mozambique, Indonesia, and Brazil.
4.3. Thereafter, it is alleged that VHHL also raised USD 400 million facilities from the Standard Charted Bank, London for appraisal and development of oil and assets of the Videocon Group. In 2012, it is alleged that the VIL refinanced the abovesaid credit facilities under the consortium structure having various lender banks led by the State Bank of India. State Bank of India led consortium bank had sanctioned the SBLC facilities amounting to USD 2774 million approximately to VHHL between 2012-13.
4.4. The investigation revealed that V.N. Dhoot and P.N. Dhoot, authorized signatories of overseas oil and gas asset holding companies Videocon Group Companies, with a dishonest intention to cheat the lender banks had diverted the foreign currency loans availed by Jupitor and VHHL against the SBLC facilities issued by lender banks and SCB loan availed by VHHL against the oil and gas assets. Out of SBLC facilities, SCB facility and Jupitor facility of USD 1967,577,140 in total, was diverted and used for unintended purposes, USD 1813 million approx. were diverted to India during the period from July 2009 till 2015-16. Out of the funds diverted in India, some of the funds were re-routed to overseas entities by way of payment of refund of export advances and loan to overseas Videocon Group Companies.
4.5 The petitioner herein has been running his business in India as well as in the overseas jurisdictions. In India, he controls the business affairs of M/s Engineer.ai India Private Limited and its other group companies. Earlier, during the period from 2008-09, he was doing his business through M/s Nivio Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (‘Nivio India’). The petitioner was running its business at overseas thorough his flagship company, ‘nHoldings SA’, USA, till 2014.
4.6 The investigation has revealed that Videocon Group Companies in India and overseas had transactions with the companies of the petitioner. Videocon group had made payments to M/s Nivio Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (Nivio India) amounting to Rs.18,44,77,000/- during the period from 15.12.2008 to 02.01.2011. However, a loan agreement was signed between Nivio Technology India Pvt. Ltd and Videocon Industries Limited (VIL), only on 24.05.2011, whereby, VIL had lent an amount of Rs.17,31,98,430/- (equivalent to USD 3,789,900). The agreement was signed by the petitioner and Shri P.N. Dhoot on behalf of Nivio India and VIL respectively. This agreement, as per respondent/ED, appears to be after thought which needs further investigation.
4.7 On 23.10.2011, a loan agreement of USD 2.5 million was signed between the petitioner and M/s Jupitor Corporation INC wherein, the petitioner was the lender and M/s Jupitor Corporation INC was the borrower which meant that petitioner is receiving money from Videocon Group in India and paying funds to Videocon Group Overseas.
4.8. On 25.05.2011, a share purchase agreement was executed between nHoldings SA and M/s Jupitor Corporation INC, wherein, Jupitor agreed to invest CHF 3,789,900 at a price of CHF 563.55 per share. The agreement was signed by the petitioner on behalf of nHoldings SA. However, in the financial statement of nHoldings SA of 2010, there was mention of share price as CHF 597.28 per share. As per the respondent, the discrepancy in the share prices in the agreement vis-a-vis the financial statement of the company needs verification.
4.9. In November 2011, VIL had transferred funds equivalent to USD 1,952,964 to nHoldings SA through a complex web of transactions using various layers including Videocon Global Limited, Jupitor Corporation, M/s Goldcoast Invex INC. and M/s Global EPC Ventures Limited (all Videocon group overseas companies). Global EPC Ventures Limited had transferred the funds amounting to USD 1,952,964 to M/s nHoldings SA on 23.11.2011.
4.10. During the period from July 2009 to 2015-16, Videocon Group Companies had diverted various credit facilities availed by the Overseas Videocon Group companies for the development of Oil and Gas assets of the Videocon Group. The diverted funds were utilized for the unintended purpose of leading the accounts to become Non-Performing Assets (‘NPA’) and causing loss to Indian Banks to the tune of Rs. 61,773 Crores approximately.
4.11. A part of the abovesaid diverted funds were retained by Videocon Group in various forms, i.e., the creation of personal assets, investments/retention of funds in various Videocon Group companies and such diverted funds were used for the creation of the personal assets and as per respondent, this investment/retention of funds constitutes the proceeds of crime.
4.12 The investigation has further revealed that the company nHoldings SA had stopped the business in 2014, and was dissolved in the 2014 itself. During investigation, V.N. Dhoot had stated that they had not received any funds from nHoldings SA against their investments in nHoldings SA.
4.13. During the relevant time of investment, P.N. Dhoot and V.N. Dhoot were the Directors and Authorized Signatories of the accounts through which funds were routed and sent to Global EPC Ventures Limited for further investment in nHoldings SA. It has not been confirmed from the investigation so far about the further travel of the proceeds of crime from nHoldings SA as the account statement of nHoldings SA was not provided.
4.14. In pursuance of the aforesaid investigation, the petitioner was summoned for his personal appearance and seeking information relating to the investments made by the Videocon Group companies, and in order to ascertain his role in his company and holding assets in siphoning off the investment funds in Videocon Group Companies. The sequence of summons issued to the petitioner as per the case of the respondent, as stated in their reply is as under: –
Date Description
05.01.2022 Summons were issued to the Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal for his appearance on 27.01.2022
19.01.2022 Summons received back as undelivered at the given address.
19.01.2022 The summons were again sent to the another address of his company at GF 77B, Sector 18, IFCO Road Gurugram, Haryana.
26.01.2022 Postal authorities had returned the summons with the remark “refuse to accept”. However, the summons was served at the office address by hand. 27.01.2022 Email from Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal received on the next day requesting therein for adjournment of 2 weeks on the health grounds.
01.02.2022 Adjournment request on health grounds was considered and next date of appearance was fixed on 10.02.2022.
10.02.2022 Email received from Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal stating therein that he is a citizen of United Kingdom and requested to send a formal request through due process.
10.02.2022 An email was sent to Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal for obtaining his UK residential address but he did not respond to the email.
16.02.2022 A reminder email was sent to Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal to provide his overseas address. However, no reply in this respect was received.
17.02.2022 Summons to Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal issued and were sent through MLAT to UK.
19.10.2022 A reminder email was sent to Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal referring both the summons dated 05.01.2022 and 17.02.2022, for, his appearance on 01.11.2022 and submission of documents.
01.11.2022 Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal not appeared. However, a partial reply received through email along with the details of his UK address.
04.11.2022 A reminder email sent to Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal
07.12.2022 A reminder email sent to Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal
08.12.2022 22.12.2022 and 29.12.2022 A partial reply through emails were received from Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal; however, he did not appear.
4.15. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has though furnished information in the form of documents through emails dated 01.11.2022, 08.12.2022, 22.12.2022 and 29.12.2022; however, he has failed to provide crucial documents including the copy of account statement of his company nHoldings SA maintained with UBS Bank and did not appear before the respondent explaining the transactions between the Videocon Group and his company, nHoldings SA.
4.16. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application for issuance of open ended Non-Bailable Warrants before the learned Special Court, Greater Bombay, PMLA. The said application, as per the case of the respondent, was rejected vide order dated 03.02.2023 by the learned PMLA Special Court, Greater Bombay, as the said Court was not the appropriate forum having jurisdiction in case. Thereafter, an application dated 07.02.2023, MISC ASJ/35/2023, was filed before the learned Special Court, PMLA, New Delhi, for issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants which was allowed vide order dated 10.02.2023. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved an application, MISC/DJ/ASJ/98/2023, for cancellation of the aforesaid Non-Bailable Warrants which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, (PC Act), (CBI)-16, Rouse Avenue District Courts.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 29 that, “It is admitted case that no prosecution complaint was filed before the learned Special Court against the present petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondent that the learned Special Court had issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance which had not been complied with. The application moved on behalf of the respondent under Section 70 of the CrPC, essentially was to ensure that the petitioner cooperates in the investigation, however, it is nowhere stated in the said application that the petitioner at any stage was being summoned as an “accused”. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is a suspect; however, nowhere in the application it is stated that he is an accused at this stage. This distinction is material inasmuch as the Section 73 of the CrPC authorises the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class to issue non-bailable warrants against any person within his local jurisdiction for (a) the arrest of any escaped convict (b) proclaimed offender or (c) of any person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.”
Quite significantly, the Bench points out in para 35 that, “This Court has gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent. In the judgments relied upon by learned Special Counsel for the respondent/ED, it is clearly borne out from the records that in all those cases where the warrants were sought to be issued, the concerned person had been shown as an accused during investigation in said cases. Power to issue non-bailable warrants in aid of investigation is not in dispute. However, the clear pre-requisites of issuance of non-bailable warrants as per Section 73 of the CrPC is sacrosanct and sine qua non which cannot be given a go by.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 36 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, powers of the Court to issue Non-Bailable Warrants on request of the Investigating Agency is under Section 73 of the CrPC for which the three prerequisites are that the person against whom the warrants are to be issued, should be either a convict, a proclaimed offender, or a person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner at any point of time was an accused in the investigation or he was evading arrest. In summons issued to the petitioner for his appearance and in the MLAT request sent on behalf of the respondent, status of the present petitioner has been shown as a ‘witness’. Even if, the contention of learned Special Counsel on behalf of the respondent is accepted to the extent that the petitioner is a suspect and his appearance is must for the complete investigation in order to explain incriminating material qua him the same will not change the status of the present petitioner to be an accused. In fact, during the course of hearing, on the application moved by the respondent before learned Special Court PMLA there was a statement before the said Court that the status of the present petitioner in the investigation is of ‘Witness’. It is noted that on such a statement being made, the learned Special Court had observed that in the circumstances, if a person is not appearing in pursuance to the summons then, a complaint under Section 174 of the IPC should have been filed by the ED, and thus, there was no occasion for issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants.”
Equally significant and briefly stated, the Bench then propounds in para 38 holding that, “It is noted that learned Special Court while issuing Non-Bailable Warrants has not specified the provision under which the same were to be issued nor the fact the petitioner was an accused and was evading arrest in terms of Section 73 of the CrPC. In fact, the learned Special Court while acknowledging that the offences under investigation were cognizable and non-bailable and thus, the respondent/ED was already in power to arrest the accused persons even without warrants, proceeded to issue warrants against the petitioner for non-compliance of the summons issued under Section 50 of the Act. Learned Special Court noted that the authority mentioned in Section 50(2) of the PMLA becomes Civil Court and therefore, proceedings before it are judicial proceedings and thus, the assistance of the Court would not be required for issuance of warrants against the accused. It is further noted by learned Special Court, based on the allegations made by the respondent in the application and upon consideration of the evidence collected so far, that the personal presence of petitioner is required in connection with the investigation of the present case. In the considered opinion of this Court, same cannot be a ground to issue non-bailable warrants in absence of the fulfilment of pre-requisites as mentioned in Section 73 of the CrPC. Admittedly, there is no other provision of law under which, learned Special Court could have issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. Thus, the consideration of learned Special Court for issuance of non-bailable warrants was beyond the requirements of Section 73 of the CrPC. Learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ED while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) had contended that summons issued by the respondent/ED under Section 50 of the PMLA is for recording of statement, purpose of which is to inquire into relevant facts in connection with the property emanating from proceeds of crime and the same, in that sense, would not be investigation as such and “in any case there will be no formal accusation against the noticee”. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid proposition as the respondent is well within its power to issue summons under Section 50 of the Act to the petitioner. Non-compliance of such summons would make the petitioner liable for prosecution under Section 174 of the IPC. It is no doubt true that Non-Bailable Warrants can be issued against the person who is evading investigation and who may not be formally arrayed as accused in the prosecution complaint, however, such persons must be projected as a person accused of committing non-bailable offence and evading arrest for the purpose of Section 73 of the CrPC. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the respondent, as noted hereinbefore, has shown the petitioner as a ‘witness’.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 43 that, “This Court is unable to agree with the aforesaid contention of the learned Special Counsel inasmuch as the fact that the petitioner is a resident of United Kingdom, and, in view of Non-Bailable Warrants issued against him, he cannot come to file a petition in India and has, therefore, filed the same through his Power of Attorney. Thus, on this ground, this Court cannot reject the present petition as being non maintainable.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 44 that, “In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law with respect to the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants under Section 73 of the CrPC, this Court is not entering into the issue of whether the summons were served through proper channel or not or whether the summons were deliberately being avoided by the petitioner, despite his being aware of the same. For the limited purpose of this petition, this Court is satisfied that the power exercised by the learned Special Court for issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants was not as per the provisions provided for in the Code.”
Resultantly, the Bench then directs and holds in para 45 that, “In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 in MISC/DJ/ASJ/98/2023 is set-aside. Non-bailable warrants issued vide order dated 10.02.2023 against the petitioner stand cancelled.”
For sake of clarity, the Bench then clarifies in para 48 holding that, “Needless to state that, nothing mentioned hereinabove, is an opinion on the merits of the case or any future proceedings/steps to be undertaken by the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement and observations made herein are only for the purposes of the present petition.”
What’s more, the Bench then directs and holds in para 49 that, “Copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned learned Special Court/Judge, PMLA, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, for necessary information and compliance.”
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 50 that, “Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.”
Sanjeev Sirohi,