The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has accused the Punjab Police of stalling the registration of an FIR, even after the central agency provided "detailed evidence" about an alleged network involving police transfers, hawala transactions, and land deals.
The accusation came in a statement from the ED, issued in response to the Punjab Government's position on the registration of the FIR. The central agency said it had formally shared the evidence with the Director General of Police (DGP), Punjab, under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
ED shares evidence on two dates
According to the ED, the evidence was shared with the Punjab Police leadership on two separate occasions — July 30 and August 7. The agency maintains that despite handing over this material, the state police did not move forward with registering a case.
The ED's statement directly counters any suggestion that the central agency had not cooperated or provided enough information to act on. By citing specific dates and the legal provision under which the evidence was shared, the agency is making a clear case that it fulfilled its part of the process.
Alleged role of middleman Nitin Gohal
The material shared by the ED reportedly points to the alleged role of a middleman named Nitin Gohal. According to the agency, the evidence reveals that Gohal was involved in several activities, including:
- Collating requests for police transfers
- Ex-filtrating pre-signed transfer orders
- Facilitating hawala transactions
- Engineering land deals
- Managing cash payments related to travel and hotel expenses
These allegations paint a picture of a coordinated network that spans multiple illegal activities. The ED's decision to name a specific individual and list his alleged functions suggests the agency believes it has built a substantial case.
Our Take: A test of inter-agency cooperation
To put it plainly, this is a serious standoff between two law enforcement bodies. The ED is saying, in effect, that it did the homework and handed over the file — but the Punjab Police did not act on it.
In our view, the core issue here is accountability. When one agency provides another with evidence under a specific legal provision and on clear dates, the receiving side owes an explanation for why no FIR was registered. The public deserves to know whether the delay is due to procedural concerns, lack of jurisdiction, or something else entirely.
This dispute also highlights a larger problem: when central and state agencies clash, investigations can stall. That does not serve the cause of justice. Both the ED and the Punjab Police need to resolve this quickly — either by registering the FIR or by clearly explaining why the evidence is insufficient. The credibility of both institutions depends on a transparent outcome.