US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
M. S. RAMESH, SUNDER MOHAN
R. Durgashankar – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
M.S. RAMESH, J.
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the impugned Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No. CEZO-I/35/2020 dated 22.06.2020 pending on the file of the respondent and quash the same.
1. The petitioner seeks for quashing of the ECIR proceedings against him, which is recorded in ECIR No. CEZO-I/35/2020 dated 22.06.2020.
2. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the ECIR proceedings stems out of an FIR, which was registered in Crime No. 7 of 2011, which culminated into a final report in C.C. No. 14 of 2019 and the same was quashed against the petitioner, by the order of this Court dated 29.08.2023 made in Crl. O.P. No. 7273 of 2023.
3. The respondent had filed a detailed counter opposing the prayer sought for by the petitioner and submitted that the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA, 2002'] is a stand alone offence and even if a person is not an accused in the predicate offence, he could stil
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.
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....
(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....
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 court established that the closure of a predicate offence negates the basis for any subsequent money laundering investigation under the PML Act.
The court established that the offense of money laundering under PMLA cannot exist independently of a scheduled offense.
FIR and ECIR become two different documents and both tend to take shape on its own, independent of each other.
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.
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....
Without a predicate offense, proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained, as established by the Supreme Court.
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.