Avinash Azad
In a significant legal setback for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Wednesday quashed the agency’s charge sheets against former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah and others in the long-running Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) alleged irregularities case.
A File Photo/Twitter.com
Justice Sanjeev Kumar delivered a decisive blow to the ED’s money laundering probe, ruling that “No predicate offence was made against the individuals. Hence, the charge sheets and supplementary charge sheet are quashed.” The court’s decision comes as a major relief for Abdullah, who served as JKCA president during the period under scrutiny, and other accused including former treasurers Ahsan Ahmed Mirza and Mir Manzoor Gazanffer. The defendants had petitioned the high court to quash the charge sheets, a move that has now proven successful.
Shariq J Reyaz, representing the ex-treasurers, challenged the very jurisdiction of the ED in the case, arguing for the dismissal of the charge sheets. The ED’s case was presented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju. The ED’s investigation stemmed from a 2018 charge sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which alleged that the accused had misappropriated JKCA funds amounting to ₹43.69 crore. These funds, provided by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) between 2002 and 2011, were intended to promote cricket in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The ED’s probe had claimed that JKCA received a total of ₹94.06 crore from BCCI across three different bank accounts during the financial years 2005-2006 to 2011-2012. The agency alleged that multiple bank accounts were opened to transfer these funds, and both new and existing accounts were subsequently used for money laundering activities.
However, the high court’s ruling puts these allegations into question, effectively nullifying the ED’s case against Abdullah and his co-accused. This development marks a turning point in a case that has been under intense scrutiny for years, touching on issues of financial impropriety in sports administration and the reach of central investigative agencies.
The court’s decision is likely to spark debate about the robustness of the ED’s evidence and its approach to high-profile cases. It also raises questions about the relationship between predicate offences and money laundering charges, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases in the future. As the dust settles on this legal battle, the focus now shifts to the potential implications of this ruling on other ongoing investigations and the strategies employed by central agencies in pursuing alleged financial irregularities.
