The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has declined a request from the Punjab Police seeking case details and investigation material in connection with the agency’s recommendation for registration of an FIR against private person Nitin Gohal and others for allegedly using their influence to interfere in government functioning.
The federal agency’s response, in which it has also questioned the Punjab Police for delaying the FIR for more than one month, has put the focus back on the controversy with the Punjab and Haryana high court also set to resume hearing on a PIL seeking an independent probe into ED’s allegations on September 3.
In a two-page reply to the Punjab Bureau of Investigation (BoI) on August 31, accessed by HT, the ED said the information and material had already been shared under Section 66 (2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) through its communications dated July 30 and August 7.
The agency said the material was shared only after “due examination, investigation and assessment” and approval of the competent authority, and after it was satisfied that the material disclosed contravention of provisions of law administered by the ED.
The response came after the Punjab BoI, in a letter dated August 28, sought deputation of an authorised ED officer along with the complete record in the case, including original electronic data, chain-of-custody documentation, investigation reports prepared so far and statements recorded by the agency, before registration of an FIR by the state police.
{{/usCountry}}The response came after the Punjab BoI, in a letter dated August 28, sought deputation of an authorised ED officer along with the complete record in the case, including original electronic data, chain-of-custody documentation, investigation reports prepared so far and statements recorded by the agency, before registration of an FIR by the state police.
{{/usCountry}}The ED, however, responded that Section 66 (2) of the PMLA cast an obligation on ED to share such information with the agency concerned for necessary action, but did not contemplate or require the receiving agency to seek further authentication, chain-of-custody documents or original source data as a pre-condition to registration of an FIR.
Shooting off the first letter to Punjab Police chief Gaurav Yadav on July 30, with a reminder on August 7, the ED had alleged that private person Nitin Gohal acted as an intermediary between interested persons and Rajbir Ghuman, officer on special duty (OSD) to chief minister Bhagwant Mann, and was involved in influencing transfers and postings of government officials, leaking confidential government documents, facilitating arms licences and securing government approvals.
In exchange, Gohal, in coordination with associates Rajbir Ghuman, Bir Devinder, Jitin Gohal, alias Raja, collected proceeds of crime to the tune of crores in the form of cash, land and kind, the agency alleged.
“The matter warrants examination under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Official Secrets Act, besides other applicable Indian Penal Code provisions, including Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc) and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record),” the ED had said, seeking an FIR against Gohal, Ghuman and others.
The Punjab DGP had forwarded the letter to the BoI to explore the legal course available to the state police before deciding whether to register an FIR. Both Gohal and Ghuman have repeatedly denied the allegations.
ED questions delay in FIR registration
In its August 31 response, the federal agency has also raised questions over the delay in FIR registration despite submitting all relevant and supporting evidence in this matter.
“The registration of FIR under Section 154 CrPC/Section 173 BNSS is mandatory once the information discloses commission of a cognisable offence as held by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court,” the ED said.
It added that while a preliminary inquiry may be resorted to in cases of corruption, such inquiry was discretionary and was confined only to ascertaining whether a cognisable offence was disclosed and not to verify the veracity, sufficiency or authenticity of the material.
“Such inquiry must, in any event, be completed and concluded within a strictly time-bound period, not ordinarily exceeding 7 to 15 days, with reasons for any delay recorded in the General Diary...However, in the present case more than 30 days have already passed,” the agency said, adding that any delay may lead to destruction/tampering of evidence, requiring urgent registration of FIR.
“Any further material or record that may be required by Punjab Police, subsequent to and strictly for the purpose of investigation after registration of the FIR, shall be provided by this office as and when requested, in accordance with law,” it said.
What has ED alleged
The ED’s letter stems from its PMLA probe against Ajay Sehgal and associates of M/s Indian Cooperative Housing Building Society over allegedly facilitating CLUs (change of land use) through government authorities to some real estate firms.
During the probe, the agency raided the premises of Gohal, Sehgal, Suresh Kumar Bajaj and others linked to the society between May 7 and 10, during which it claimed to have recovered incriminating documents and information.
In support of its allegations, the ED has cited 21 WhatsApp chats between September 20, 2023, and March 18, 2026, relating to transfers and postings of officials from various departments, including the police, Punjab Civil Services, food and civil supplies, Markfed and the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA).
PIL in high court: ED files affidavit, hearing tomorrow
The ED on Tuesday submitted a 200-page affidavit to the Punjab and Haryana high court regarding a PIL filed by lawyer Nikhil Saraf, demanding an independent probe into the ED allegations. The high court will take up the matter on September 3.
The court, while hearing the PIL on August 28, had sought replies by September 3 from the Punjab government, Punjab DGP, Punjab Vigilance Bureau’s chief director, ED and CBI.
The ED’s affidavit detailed the entire investigation, starting from the alleged fake CLUs and consent letters issued to Suntec City, and the alleged role of Nitin Gohal in government functioning, transfers and policy matters.
The document also included the purported WhatsApp chats retrieved from Gohal’s mobile phones during ED’s searches on his premises on May 8. It also carried excerpts from Gohal’s detailed statement in response to over 40 questions about his sources of income and his relationship with people on the agency’s radar.