New Delhi: As the Delhi high court quashed the two cases against Newsclick, it noted that even if all the allegations were accepted, still, no offence could be made out under cheating, misappropriation of property or money laundering, of which the state had accused the independent news portal.In the 41-page judgment pronounced by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on May 29 – the order copy was made available on Wednesday (June 10) – the court, while quashing both the FIR registered by the Delhi police and the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED’s) money laundering case, has stated that aside from “bald assertions” of there being a criminal conspiracy, there is not a whisper of any incriminating allegation.Here’s what the court said in respect to each of the cases.The main allegation in the FIR registered by the Delhi police against PPK Newsclick – the company which owns and operates Newsclick – on August 2020 was that it had received Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the sum of $1.5 million (Rs 9.59 Crore) in exchange of its 7.69% shares.The court noted that while the state alleged that there was over valuation of shares to avoid restriction/cap in FDI, as per a reply of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, there was no cap/restriction on receipt of the FDI in digital media at the time when the money was received.In fact, the court noted that Newsclick had written a letter dated December 20, 2017 to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting requesting a clarification to the policy in respect of print media and also in respect of FDI in a company engaged in the business of online publication of news.‘Investment agreement not in violation of any law’The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting gave a reply dated January 5, 2018 with a clarification that “online publication on website/web portal do not fall under the ambit of print media.”“From the response received from the Ministry in respect of FDI Policy, it was clearly evident that there was no cap on the online publication of news and thus, the agreement between the petitioner and M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC and, therefore, the Investment Agreement dated 20.03.2018 cannot be said to be in violation of any law or disclosing any criminal offence,” says the judgment.“For the offence of cheating, it is necessary that there must be an aggrieved person who has been cheated out of his valuable property. In this case, M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC is the entity which had forwarded 1.5 million USD to the petitioner. However, there is no complaint whatsoever, by the company about having been cheated by the petitioner,” said the court in its judgment.‘No aggrieved person’The court said that the complaint had been made by one Shoban Singh, who was merely an informant and was not the aggrieved person.“There is nothing which has emerged even during the investigations as reflected in the Status Report, that there was any person who was aggrieved or who was cheated by the petitioner. The offence of cheating even if all the allegations made are admitted, is not established,” the judgement adds.‘Payments incurred for salary, rent, expenses of journalists don’t mean siphoning FDI’Another allegation against Newsclick was that it was “siphoning” the FDI received from M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC, in payment of salary, consultation fee, rent and other expenses of the promoters, journalists, employees associated with the company.“However, when a company is functioning especially in the business of digital print media, such expenses are bound to occur. Even if it is accepted that there were over payments and excessive expenditure incurred by the petitioner, then too it does not disclose any criminal offence. The allegation of siphoning is, therefore, not tenable,” says the judgment.The court added that a Status Report dated July 26, 2021, copy of which was forwarded to the petitioner as an advance copy, though not placed on record, clearly stated that during the course of investigation a reply from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had been received wherein it was mentioned that as per the Form FCGPR, the foreign inward remittance was under automatic route and there was no delay in issue of shares as well as reporting, as per the extant Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) regulations in case of the petitioner.‘Continuation of such FIR is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law’The second offence with which Newsclick was charged under Section 406 IPC was for having misappropriated the property that was entrusted by some person.“By the same logic there is neither any person who has claimed to have entrusted a property or that it has been misappropriated by the petitioner. There may have been a business transaction of investment and purchase of shares by M/s Worldwide Media. Holdings LLC on payment of 1.5 million USD, but by no stretch of interpretation can it be said to be an entrustment by M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC or misappropriation by the petitioner,” said the court.“Even if all the allegations are accepted, no offence under 406 or 420 IPC is disclosed in the FIR and in the subsequent investigations that have been undertaken. The continuation of such FIR is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law and is hereby, quashed,” said Justice Krishna in the judgment, quashing the Delhi police’s FIR against the independent news portal.‘ED couldn’t explain basis of alleged criminal conspiracy’In the ED case against Newsclick under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the high court noted that the ED couldn’t explain on what basis the criminal conspiracy is being alleged.“Merely because the parties entered into an agreement is not sufficient to constitute criminal conspiracy, unless the ED is able to show what is the illegal objective or the means which have been adopted by the petitioners and the other persons which can be termed as criminal conspiracy,” said the court in its judgment.‘Not a whisper of any incriminating allegation’The court once again reiterated the same thing as in the case of the Delhi police’s FIR and said that the response of the ED itself reflects that even if the entire allegations against the petitioners are admitted, no offence is disclosed.“Pertinently, extensive investigations have been carried out by ED for about a year and a half and petitioners as well as its employees have been summoned and examined many a times, but nothing incriminating till date has been found or placed on record. Aside from bald assertions of there being a criminal conspiracy, there is not a whisper of any incriminating allegation, which would even remotely suggest the commission of the offence punishable under Section 4 PMLA,” said the judgment, quashing the ED’s Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).‘No FEMA violations’In addition to the investigations under the FIR and the ECIR, the state was also probing alleged FEMA violations.Here too, the high court held that there was no illegality or any manipulation pointed out in respect of the working out fair value of the shares.“The fair valuation assessment of the shares had been done of the petitioner company in accordance with the FEMA regulations. Therefore, to say that the petitioner could not have issued the shares to M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC at Rs.10/-, would in violation of extant FEMA guidelines,” said the court in its judgment.“On the assessment of day to day market and the prospects of growth of the company, that the price was mutually agreed by the petitioner and M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC. It is an economic decision which does not spell out any criminal offence,” the judgment adds.During the hearing of the petition, Newsclick had submitted that the FIR and the ECIR and the investigations conducted therein, are attempts to silence the independent and impartial reporting of various issues of national importance and are intended to create a chilling effect on various persons, including journalists, discouraging them from exercising their constitutional right of freedom of speech.