Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
South Indian Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
Petitioner, though a de facto complainant, has approached this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’ ) seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (for short ‘ED’) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Petitioner is a scheduled bank, which had initiated FIR.No.38/2019 of Crime Branch, Thrissur, alleging offences including Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code 1868 against respondents 2 to 4 and others. The aforesaid offences are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short PML Act). While the crime was being investigated by the Crime Branch, pursuant to the FIR, the Enforcement Directorate stepped in and commenced their investigation after registering ECIR No.KCZO/05/2019. In the meantime, the Crime Branch completed the investigation and filed a final report referring the case as a civil matter. The said report was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur as RC.No.73/2023 on 05.01.2024. Thus the predicate offence has ended in a closure of the investigation as no crime was
(1) Scheduled offences – When predicate offence is not in existence, ED cannot continue its investigation on proceeds of crime emanating out of predicate offence.
(2) Power conferred on High Court....
The court established that the closure of a predicate offence negates the basis for any subsequent money laundering investigation under the PML Act.
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 settled position of law is that the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot proceed further once the FIR/Final Report relating to the predicate offence is quashed.
The court established that the offense of money laundering under PMLA cannot exist independently of a scheduled offense.
An ECIR is an internal document of the ED and cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as it does not equate to an FIR.
FIR and ECIR become two different documents and both tend to take shape on its own, independent of each other.
Without a predicate offense, proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained, as established by the Supreme Court.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings cannot survive if the predicate offences linked to them are closed by the court, indicating the non-existence of 'proceeds of crime'.
M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd and Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others
-
Read summaryR. P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab
-
Read summaryNandakumar V.P vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.