Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Sree Raghavendra Enterprises, By Its Partner Smt. N. Suvarna – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director, Director Of Enforcement, Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance – Respondent
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioners, in these cases, raise a common challenge to the proceedings instituted by the Enforcement Directorate in ECIR/MGSZO/01/2024 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘the Act’ for short). A consequent mandamus is sought to declare that the proceeds of crime traceable to original complaints in P.C.R. Nos.73, 74, 75 & 76 of 2022 cannot be gone into, in the light of quashment of crime itself by this Court.
2. Heard Sri M.V. Sheshachala, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The proceedings impugned in the case at hand are an offshoot of registration of private complaints in P.C.R. Nos.73, 74, 75 & 76 of 2022 and several other private complaints registered. The aforesaid private complaints along with several other complaints against these petitioners become the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Criminal Petition Nos. 8067, 8072, 8075, 8076, 8079, 8068, 8070, 8074, 8077 and 8078 of 2023. The Enforcement Directorate is nowhere in the picture till this point. This Court, exercising its jurisd
The Enforcement Directorate cannot act without predicate offences; absence of these renders related proceedings invalid.
The presence of a scheduled offence legitimizes the existence of an ECIR and allows the department to continue the investigation. However, the settlement or quashing of scheduled offences in FIRs pro....
The court established that the offense of money laundering under PMLA cannot exist independently of a scheduled offense.
Section 66(1) of the PMLA prescribes the obligations of Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide or facilitate the provision of pertinent information to designated government entities when such inform....
Money laundering proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained without a validly registered predicate offense; if the predicate offense is quashed, so are the related m....
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings are independent of the predicate offence and must proceed without delay, reflecting the urgency in addressing economic crimes.
Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not sustainable without a registered scheduled offence, as established by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
The court upheld the validity of the ECIR independent of the FIRs, affirming that non-bailable warrants were justified due to the petitioners' non-cooperation in the investigation.
The trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is independent of any pending trial for the predicate offence, as affirmed by the court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
