Rishu Shree v. The Union of India and Ors
An Enforcement Case Information Report is an internal document of the Directorate with no statutory basis, which is not liable to be quashed unless the predicate offence is quashed, and a challenge made before its contents are known is premature; the rule against a second FIR depends on whether both FIRs relate to the same incident, so a second FIR on different incidents and a larger conspiracy, and a fresh ECIR on its scheduled offences, are permissible; PMLA authorities are not police officers, so statements under section 50 before arrest are not hit by article 20(3), section 25 of the Evidence Act or section 164 of the CrPC; and the Directorate may share information with the police under section 66(2) and a private person may be tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-10-13
Rishu Shree, a Patna contractor and director of Reliable Infra Services, said the Enforcement Directorate registered a second ECIR on the same facts as an earlier one, used statements allegedly obtained under duress to launch fresh FIRs and was evergreening its jurisdiction. The High Court held the challenge premature and without substance.
What happened
FIR No. 18 of 2023 at Rupaspur Police Station against Gulab Yadav, Sanjeev Hans and another alleged rape, and the Directorate registered ECIR/PTZO/20/4/2024 on 14 March 2024 treating sections 420 and 120B IPC as scheduled offences. On 16 July 2024 it searched premises of the petitioner's company and residence, seized devices, and recorded the petitioner's statements on 16 and 18 July, 18, 20 and 21 September and 1 October 2024. By letters of 20 August 2024 and 14 February 2025 under section 66(2), it informed the Special Vigilance Unit, Bihar, leading to a second FIR of 14 September 2024 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act about Rs. 20 lakh moved to a person and then to the informant, and a third FIR No. 05 of 2025 of 30 April 2025 alleging manipulation of Bihar government tenders and commission of 8 to 10 per cent. The Directorate registered ECIR/PTZO/13/2025 on 22 May 2025 and summoned the petitioner on 9 and 15 September 2025. The Supreme Court on 17 October 2025 relegated the petitioner's writ to the High Court, and on 19 December 2025 allowed the petitioner to intervene on the constitutionality of the PMLA in the batch of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 132 of 2025. The petitioner relied on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Prem Prakash v. Union of India, and on Nandini Satpathy for article 20(3); the Directorate said the offences, FIRs and ECIRs differ.
Questions before the court
- Can the High Court quash the second ECIR and the Directorate's statements and summons, or restrain further coercive steps, on the ground that they repeat an earlier investigation and rest on coerced statements?
Why the court ruled this way
An ECIR is an internal document with no statutory basis, which need not be supplied to the accused according to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, so it cannot be quashed as of right except where the predicate offence is quashed, and the contention that ECIR-13 repeats ECIR-4 was speculative since the ECIR had not been put in the public domain (paragraphs 38 and 39). On the second FIR, the test of sameness in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat asks whether both relate to the same incident; here the second and third FIRs allege different incidents and a larger conspiracy with new accused, the predicate offences were not challenged, and a number of FIRs can be subsumed in one ECIR, so there is no evergreening (paragraphs 40 to 42). Statements under section 50 are not hit by article 20(3) because the PMLA authorities are not police officers, and as the petitioner was not an accused when the statements were recorded, neither section 164(4) of the CrPC nor the protection against confession to a police officer applies, as K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector also shows (paragraphs 44 to 48). The Court will not interfere with the statutory exercise of the power of summons, search and seizure, which Vijay Madanlal Choudhary upheld, and no writ lies against a summons or show cause notice at this stage (paragraphs 43 and 49). The Directorate has a duty to share information under section 66(2), and further investigation needs a court's leave only in trial, so Vinay Tyagi and Pramod Kumar do not apply (paragraphs 50 and 51). A private person may be tried for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act as Jitender Kumar Singh holds (paragraph 52).
Controlling point
No ground was made out to quash the ECIR or the statements and summons or to restrain the Directorate, and the petition was devoid of merit.
Order and next steps
The writ petition was dismissed and pending applications disposed of.
Practical implications
A person summoned in a second ECIR cannot rely on the second-FIR rule if the scheduled offences relate to different incidents, and must seek relief against any real prejudice at the right time in the right forum, including a challenge to the scheduled offence itself.
Limits of this ruling
- The Court did not decide the constitutional validity of the PMLA, which the petitioner was left to raise before the Supreme Court, and it treated its view on statements as applying to statements made before the petitioner was arrested or arraigned as an accused.
Law and judgment source
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, sections 2(1)(na), 17, 48, 50, 63, 65 and 66(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sections 164 and 173(8)
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 12 and 13
- Constitution of India, articles 14, 20(3), 21 and 226
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established.
Source checked: 2026-10-13 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 1-55 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.