The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions under the PML Act, 2002 and the principle that objections regarding taking cognizance cannot be raised at a belated stage.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in Special C.C.No. 36/2013 pending on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and Special Judge (CCH-1), Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 punishable under Sec. 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PML' Act).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned special counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has filed a complaint in ECIR No. 87/BZ/2010 before the Special Court under Ss. 43 and 44 of the PML Act by way of PCR No. 13/2013 alleging that the petitioner-company is said to have laundering money has committed the offence as per Sec. 3 of the PML Act punishable under Sec. 4 of the PML Act read with Ss. 120B, 420 of IPC, Ss. 13(2) read with Sec. 131 D of the P.C. Act. The same is challenged before this Court by the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and 4.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contested the matter challenging the taking cognizance by the Special Court stating that the petitioners were residing at Mandya, the alleged offence committed at Mandya District, therefore, the Court at Bengaluru have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and on the point of jurisdiction, the complaint is not sustainable, hence, liable to be dismissed and further contended that the learned Sessions Judge while taking cognizance has not stated anything about the offence committed by the petitioners and for what offence, the cognizance was taken, but has issued summons without application of mind. Therefore, on this ground, the proceedings shall be quashed.

5. Per contra, Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special counsel for the respondent has objected the petition and contended that as per the Notification issued by the Government of India in the year 2006 itself, for Karnataka, the Principal City Civil Court, Bengaluru assigned the jurisdiction for the trial of offences committed in almost fourteen Districts including Mandya District and from Bagalkot to Raichur District and another 13 Districts, Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Raichur was designated as Special Court. Therefore, he has contended that the objection raised by the petitioners' counsel is not sustainable. Learned Special counsel has also contended that the trial Court has already framed the charges on 20/2/2021 and subsequently, the complainant has been examined as PW.1 on 4/9/2021 and the petitioners' counsel has already cross-examined PW.1 on 22/9/2021 prior to the staying of proceedings by this Court and therefore, once the framing of charge was not challenged and evidence was commenced, when the trial Court already stated that there is no material to frame the charges, this Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings by exercising the power under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the petitioners are said to be residing at Mandya. The alleged offence is said to have committed by the petitioners at Mandya District. It is pertinent to note that the Government of India vide Gazette Notification dtd. 1/6/2006 issued under Sec. 43(1) of the PML Act, 2002 and for Karnataka, the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru established as the Special Court for the offences committed in various Revenue Districts including Bengaluru, Tumakuru, Kolar, Mandya, Hassan District etc. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that Principal City Civil Court, Bengaluru has no jurisdiction is not sustainable and the ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is sustainable and hence, rejected.

7. The another contention raised by the learned counsel is that the trial Court while taking cognizance has no