IMPORTANT POINT
Mere summons does not constitute a positive action entitling petitioner to question it in a writ petition – Mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

V. Kameswar Rao J.—The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.22780/2023 with a further prayer to grant the prayers made in the writ petition. The prayers made in WP No.22780/2023 are the following:—

“Wherefore, this Hon’ble Court, be pleased to:—

a. Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records from the office of the Respondents connected to the impugned proceedings F.No. ECIR/BGO/05/2021, and

b. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction & quash the summons dated 06/10/2023 in F.No. ECIR/BGO/05/2021 as per Annexure A issued in the name of the Petitioner by the Respondent No.2 is illegal and bad at Law and

c. Consequentially Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing all consequential and incidental proceedings/action Initiated against the Petitioner in F.No.ECIR/BGO/05/2021 is illegal and bad at Law.

d. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, forbearing the Respondent from proceedings in any manner contrary to Law.

e. Pass any order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2. Some of the facts to be noted for the purpose of decision in this appeal are, the appellant herein was the Chairman of Shivamogga DCC Bank for a period of 23 years from 1997 to 2020. An FIR in Crime No.325/2014 was registered by Doddapete Police Station, Shivamogga and a charge sheet dated 18.10.2014 was filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 409, 120B, 201 read with Section 37 of IPC. The Court took cognizance and registered CC No.1849/2014 which was later renumbered as CC No.2775/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 201, 120B read with Section 37 of IPC. In this case, the appellant was not arraigned as an accused. Subsequently, on a further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.PC, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant in CC No.2775/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 202 read with Section 36 of IPC. That apart, a case in Crime No.4/2014 dated 29.05.2014 was registered against the appellant for the offences under Sections 13(i)(e) read with 13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) and a charge sheet dated 20.03.2018 was filed.

3. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that, there was no scheduled offence against the appellant which could form the basis of initiating proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’ for short). Though the appellant was arraigned as accused No.15 in Crime No.325/2014, his name was dropped and thereafter an additional charge sheet was filed on 30.07.2021 in Crime No.325/2014 alleging commission of offences under Sections 409, 202 read with Section 36 of IPC which are not the offences mentioned in paragraph No.1 of Part-A of the Schedule to the PMLA. It was also the case of the appellant that offence under Section 13(i)(e) of the PC Act is not a schedule offence under the PMLA unless there is an allegation under Sections 13(i)(a) to (d) of the PC Act.

4. The learned Single Judge while dismissing WP No.22780/2023, has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others -Vs.- Union of India and Others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929] to hold that, it is a well settled law that an offence under PMLA is attracted only when any of the offences mentioned in the schedule to the PMLA is registered. The learned Single Judge stated that, the Authorities under the PMLA cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional Police or pending enquiry or trial by way of a complaint before a competent forum. The learned Single Judge has also held tha