ORDER :

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the impugned complaint in C.C.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Hon'ble II-Additional District Court for CBI cases, Madurai and quash the same in respect of the petitioners alone.

It is seen from the records that the schedule offence was investigated by the District Crime Branch, Karur in Crime No.6 of 2013 and a final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.3 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 468, 471, 409, 420, 416, 201 and 109 I.P.C. In this case, admittedly the trial is yet to commence.

2. Parallely, the respondent has proceeded to register ECIR in the year 2015 and subsequently a complaint has been filed before the Special Court for an alleged offence under Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act punishable under Section 4 of the Act. (herein after referred to as PMLA Act).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint, since an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA Act will come into play, only after the trial and disposal of the case which is pending in C.C.No.3 of 2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if in case the Special Court proceeds further to decide the case and convicts the petitioners and at a later point of time, the court which is dealing with the schedule offence, acquits the petitioners, the petitioners will be put to untold hardship.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the very offence of money laundering that has been alleged by the respondent is defendant upon the commission of the schedule offence. Therefore, the result in the case that is pending in C.C.No.3 of 2016, will have a bearing on the complaint that has been filed before the Special Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on the side of the petitioner. It will be relevant to extract the provisions of Section 3 of the PMLA Act.

“3. Offence of money laundering.- Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.”

6. It is clear from the above provision that the offence of Money laundering is directly connected with the proceeds of the crime. Therefore, it is important to understand the meaning of proceeds of crime. This is defined under Section 2(u) of the Act as follows.

(u) ‘proceeds of crime’ means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property;

7. In order to attract the said provision, the proceeds of the crime must relate to any property which has been derived or obtained directly or indirectly by a person as a result of a criminal activity relating to a schedule offence. Schedule offence has been defined under the Act under Section 2(y) of the Act, which is as follows.

(y) ‘Schedule offence’ means-

(i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or

(ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is thirty lakh rupees or more; or

(iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule;]

8. In this case, admittedly the offence for which an F.I.R was registered against the petitioners and the final report that was filed, subsequent to the investigation, is a schedule offence under the PMLA Act. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether