The quashing of an FIR does not preclude ongoing investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as statutory powers of authorities remain intact.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

The Writ Petition on hand has been instituted to forbear the respondents from any way summoning or investigating the petitioner and his family member on account of the case against one Madhan and others in F.I.R. Crime No.143 of 2016 under the provision of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as the FIR in Crime No.143 of 2016 has been quashed as far as the petitioner herein is concerned, which has also become final which completely oust the jurisdiction of the respondents from invoking any provision of PMLA against the petitioner.

2. Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would mainly contend that the scheduled offence has been quashed in respect of the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7295 of 2017 challenging the final judgment and order dated 06.09.2017 in Crl.O.P.No.3154 of 2017 passed by the High Court of Madras. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed final orders on 22.09.2017 as follows:-

"a) All the claimants are directed to approach the High Court with the aforesaid request by filing affidavits stating that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

(b) On filing the affidavits the High Court shall quash the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

(c) Till the time these affidavits are filed and the order of the quashing is passed by the High Court the amount shall not be disbursed and the amount shall be disbursed only after filing of the affidavits.

(d) The petitioner shall also be involved in the aforesaid process so that he is able to verify that only genuine persons have filed the affidavits and received the payments.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly."

3. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that in compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the victims received the money and given acknowledgments. Since the petitioner has complied with the conditional order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge of this Court quashed F.I.R. in Crime No.143 of 2016 in Crl.O.P.No.3154 of 2017. Pertinently, the F.I.R. was quashed as against the petitioner herein alone.

4. Relying on the quashment of the F.I.R., the learned Senior Counsel relied on the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, wherein it is contended that the scheduled offence has been quashed against the petitioner and therefore, no proceeding under the PMLA can be instituted against the petitioner.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that the F.I.R. was quashed in respect of the petitioner only with reference to the scheduled offence and still the Enforcement Directorate is empowered to proceed with the case under the PMLA, if required or if additional materials are available against other accused or any other person, who have involved in an offence under Section 3 of PMLA. Mere settlement of money to the victims in the scheduled offence would not be a ground to seek exoneration from appearing before the competent authority under the PMLA in response to the summons or notice issued. The petitioner is not entitled for an absolute exoneration from the proceedings at this stage, since the investigations are going on in respect of the scheduled offence against the other accused persons.

6. In the order passed in the case of Madhan Vs. State rep. by Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2017) 2 LW (Cri) 446, [Mr.Madhan is A1 in the predicate offence in Crime No.143 of 2016], this Court made the following observations:-

"33. When the police case is so specific that Pachamuthu shared the common intentio