EOW to seek custody of IPS officer's husband in second FIR

MUMBAI: The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police will approach the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court, seeking custody of Purshottam Chavan, husband of IPS officer Rashmi Karandikar. First, the Enforcement Directorate and then the EOW arrested had Chavan in a ₹25 crore fraud case. And now the EOW will arrest him in a ₹7.42 crore government land cheating case.
According to EOW officials, they will approach the PMLA court with a production warrant. Chavan was first arrested by the ED in May, 2024, after which the PMLA court sent him to jail in the ₹263 crore Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) scam case.
Thereafter, the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) arrested Chavan for allegedly defrauding 19 people of ₹24.78 crore by promising them homes at discounted rates under various government schemes.
'He was sent to judicial custody. We want to now arrest him in the second FIR against the husband of a Maharashtra cadre IPS officer; this time for allegedly cheating six people to the tune of more than ₹7.42 crore by promising them plots of land, owned by the government and Bombay Port Trust (BPT), at discounted rates,' said an EOW officer.
He further said that Chavan and his accomplices cheated people by promising them government plots in Bhiwandi, Pune, Panvel and Sewri, and some plots of Bombay Port Trust (BPT) at discounted rates. 'They even forged documents to show they had signed agreements with the complainants. They also took money from some complainants after promising them contracts to supply hoodies and T-shirts to Nashik Police Training Centre,' said the officer.
He also said that the ED had found incriminating documents during searches, implicating the accused in the cases.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

4 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

ED withdraws summons to senior advocate amid row

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday withdrew its summons to senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, hours after the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai to take suo motu cognisance of the agency's move, calling it a grave infringement on the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of lawyer-client privilege. The summons pertained to the ongoing investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance. (HT photo) Venugopal, summoned on June 19 to appear before the ED on June 24 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, received a text message from the agency on Friday afternoon informing him that the notice 'stands withdrawn with immediate effect.' The summons pertained to the ongoing investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises Chairperson Rashmi Saluja. Venugopal was the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) for a legal opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar in the matter. ED had earlier summoned Datar as well, but that notice too was rescinded following backlash from the legal fraternity. In a letter dated June 20, SCAORA President Vipin Nair described the summons to Venugopal as 'a deeply disquieting development,' and warned that coercive measures against lawyers for professional legal opinions strike at the heart of legal privilege and the fundamental tenets of the rule of law. SCAORA asserted that such actions represent an 'impermissible transgression' into the constitutionally protected sphere of legal advice. 'The role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies, particularly in respect of opinions rendered in a professional capacity—strikes at the core of the rule of law,' the letter stated. SCAORA urged the Supreme Court to examine the legality and propriety of summoning advocates for professional opinions and called for the framing of clear guidelines to insulate the legal profession from similar overreach in the future. This is the second time in recent days that the Association has stepped in to defend the autonomy of the Bar. On June 16, SCAORA issued a public statement condemning the ED's notice to Datar as 'unwarranted' and a manifestation of growing investigative overreach. Similar concerns have echoed across the legal landscape. On June 17, the Delhi High Court Bar Association passed a resolution criticising the ED's actions, warning of a direct threat to the constitutional right to legal representation and fair trial. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association also convened an emergency meeting, with its president Brijesh Trivedi calling for urgent government action to protect lawyer-client privilege through amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. While ED has not formally disclosed reasons for withdrawing the summons to Venugopal, senior members of the Bar see the move as an implicit recognition of the serious constitutional and professional issues flagged by the legal community.

Indian Express

5 hours ago

• Indian Express

PMLA probe complete, asked banks to unfreeze accounts of bootlegger's brother: Gujarat Police tells HC

Nearly three years after the State Monitoring Cell (SMC) of the Gujarat police directed two banks to freeze accounts of a Vadodara-based businessman to investigate a proposed case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, against his brother, a wanted alleged bootlegger, the cell informed the Gujarat High Court that it has requested the banks to 'unfreeze' the accounts as the investigation was complete. On Thursday, Justice HD Suthar of the Gujarat HC disposed of the petition filed by Rajesh Udhwani, a resident of Vadodara's Warasiya area and the brother of Vijay Udhwani, who had moved a Special Criminal Application through his advocate Rahul Sharma against the state of Gujarat, Director General and Inspector General of Police, SMC, and Vadodara city branches of two banks — Bank of Baroda and HDFC Bank – after his accounts were frozen in July 2022 at the directions of the SMC. On Thursday, as the petition came up for hearing, the government public prosecutor informed the court that the SMC, had, through a communication to the banks in April, directed that the two accounts held by Rajesh Udhwani be 'unfreezed' as the 'investigation was done'. The court, in an oral order, disposed of the petition and said, 'In view of the communication dated 29.04.2025 prepared by the Police Sub-Inspector, State Monitoring Cell, Gujarat State, the application stands disposed of as having become infructuous.' In his petition before the HC, the petitioner stated that he runs a liquor business in Rajasthan and a retail cloth store in Vadodara city. He challenged the seizure of his two bank accounts with the HDFC and the Bank of Baroda, which was effected by both banks in July 2022, on the directions of the SMC. The petition stated that Rajesh Udhwani 'has no criminal antecedent and is not involved in any criminal activity'. The petitioner had stated that he 'has reasons to believe that his bank accounts were seized because several offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, have been registered against his brother.' Rajesh Udhawani's advocate Rahul Sharma told The Indian Express, 'The petition contended that seizure of bank accounts of any person, without there being any connection with any crime, is not permissible under law. There is also no reason for the police to suspect the commission of any crime. Therefore, the prayer was that the order of the SMC to seize the accounts of the petitioner be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be allowed to operate his bank account without any hindrance… The SMC had frozen the accounts without following the process of law.' In a letter sent to the manager of the banks in April, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, SMC, directed that the accounts be 'unfreezed'. The letter, which is now part of the annexures presented before the HC by the petitioner, and signed by Police Sub-inspector of SMC, said, 'An offence has been registered (in 2021)… for the purpose of PMLA (money laundering) proposal of the accused and to further investigate the case, the Investigating Officer JH Dahiya, Police Inspector SMC Gandhinagar, with cited reference letter, has examined account details of the accounts connected and familiar with the main accused… and after that the IO had requested your bank to freeze and mark this account as 'No Debit' till further instructions from his office… Investigation of the account has been done… so you are requested to unfreeze the account.' The petitioner's brother, Vijay Udhwani alias Viju Sindhi, is an alleged bootlegger who has multiple cases against him across the state as well as a red corner notice. Vijay has been on the run since his name cropped up in the murder of gangster Mukesh Harjani in Vadodara in 2016. In February, the SMC had booked Vijay under the GUCTOC Act along with his gang members in hundreds of collective cases. Vijay has challenged the FIR in the Gujarat HC.

Time of India

11 hours ago

• Time of India

Pre-arrest bail pleas of Ecstasy Realty's directors rejected in ₹600 crore financial fraud case

MUMBAI : A sessions court in Mumbai on Friday denied anticipatory bail to four directors of Ecstasy Realty Private Limited in a Rs 600 crore financial fraud case. Additional sessions judge NG Shukla rejected the pre-arrest bail pleas of Pulin Bole, Shivani Verma, Shobit Rajan and Pranav Bajaj. The reasoned order was not made available as yet. The Economic Offence Wing (EOW) had registered an FIR against Ecstasy Realty and its directors based on a complaint by Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited ( EARCL ). As per the FIR, Rs 600 crore raised via secured Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) for a residential project was fraudulently siphoned off through layered transactions, benefiting promoters and related entities. The accused sought pre-arrest bail claiming they were innocent and contending that the FIR was registered with "the sole intention to harass and humiliate" them. No correct allegations are contained in the FIR, their pleas claimed. The FIR has been lodged after an "inexplicable and unjustifiable" delay for the alleged offence committed between March 2018 to March 2023, which suggests the allegations against them are an afterthought and have been falsely fabricated to implicate them, the plea added. The court, however, rejected their pleas.