ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 14.07.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No. 9157 of 2022 in S.C.No. 74 of 2017 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Chennai.

2. Since the entire facts of this case have been vividly captured in the order dated 18.02.2022 in Crl.O.P.No. 2342 of 2022, we do not want to repeat the same and instead, we extract verbatim paragraphs 2 to 17 therefrom:

“2. The minimum facts that are required for deciding this quash petition are as under:

2.1. In Kanchipuram, there was a person, by name, D.Sridhar, against whom the local police had registered 26 criminal cases covering almost all the provisions of the Penal Code, including murder, attempt to murder, abduction, extortion, criminal intimidation, kidnapping, cheating, etc. It appears that he had fled to the Middle East, but, the investigation of the cases against him proceeded and they are at various stages now. We are told at the bar that Sridhar died in Cambodia on 04.10.2017.

2.2. Since the cases registered against him disclosed the commission of scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’] viz. 120- B, 302, 307, 364, 384 and 385 IPC and section 3 r/w 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in ECIR No. CEZO/03/2016 on 09.03.2016 and took up investigation under the PMLA.

2.3. It is the case of the Enforcement Directorate that D.Sridhar, by committing various criminal activities, had acquired wealth and purchased various properties in and around Kanchipuram. During the course of investigation, the Enforcement Directorate identified a property measuring 12945 sq.ft. in survey No. 557/1A1A batch (for avoiding prolixity we refrain from mentioning all the survey numbers) as proceeds of crime. This property is the subject matter of the case at hand and therefore, we would call it as the “impugned property.”

2.4. The impugned property was purchased by Kumari, wife of Sridhar, from 9 persons via 10 sale deeds registered in December 2015 in the office of the Sub Registrar Joint II, Kanchipuram. Thereafter, Kumari settled the impugned property in favour of her daughter Dhanalakshmi Sridhar, who was 20 years old then, vide a deed of settlement dated 02.01.2016 registered as Document No. 03 of 2016.

2.5. The petitioner belongs to the Pothy family, which runs a chain of textile outlets in various parts of Tamil Nadu. This Pothy family appears to be owning land measuring 64734 sq.ft. in Survey No. 555/2, Kanchipuram, which is adjacent to the impugned property. The impugned property is a pathway connecting the main road with the property of the Pothys in Survey No. 555/2. Therefore, the Pothy brothers, numbering 5, purchased the impugned property from Dhanalakshmi Sridhar for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,30,74,500/- by a deed of sale dated 29.02.2016 registered as Document No. 1184/2016 and since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Alleging that this property has been acquired by D.Sridhar’s family via criminal activities, the Enforcement Directorate passed an order of provisional attachment dated 02.09.2016 u/s.5 of the PMLA. This order of provisional attachment was challenged by the Pothy brothers in W.P.No. 34694 of 2016 and the matter was heard by one of us [P.N. Prakash, J.] and the petition was dismissed on 20.12.2016 observing as follows:

“11. In Section 2(u), the words “any property and any person” are used. The Section does not say that at the relevant point of time, the property in question must be in the hands of the alleged offender. This can be elucidated with an example. A professional assassin would quote a price for an elimination from his hirer. The price will mostly be in terms of “money.” He would successfully complete his assignment and take his price in money. That is one proceeds of crime.