The offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is a continuing offence; quashing of cognizance against one accused does not extinguish the jurisdiction to proceed against others if the scheduled offence survives.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for both the Parties.

2. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioners calls in question the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court (PMLA), Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Complaint Case (PMLA) No.61 of 2018. CRLMC No.1756 of 2019 has been filed by Biranchi Narayan Mishra, while CRLMC No.1758 of 2019 has been filed by Trilochan Mishra, both seeking quashment of the aforesaid order of cognizance. Since the factual background underlying these CRLMCs stands on the same footing as that involved in CRLREV No.119 of 2023 arising out of Chhatrapur P.S. Case No.119 of 2015, the consequent G.R. Case and the prosecution initiated in Complaint Case (PMLA) No.61 of 2018, the present CRLMCs were heard analogously with the said criminal revision. While the CRLMCs are being disposed of by this common judgment, the CRLREV has been considered and decided separately.

3. The background facts, in brief, are that Opposite Party No.2-the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Bhubaneswar filed a complaint under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which was registered as Complaint Case (PMLA) No.61 of 2018 before the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar-cum-Special Court under the said Act. In the complaint, it was prayed that cognizance be taken of the offence of money laundering and that the Petitioners be proceeded against in accordance with law. A further prayer was made for punishing the accused persons for the offences under Section 3 read with Sections 70(1) and 70(2) of the PMLA, punishable under Section 4 thereof, as well as for the scheduled offences arising out of Chhatrapur P.S. Case No.119 dated 03.09.2015, later converted to CID, CB P.S. Case No.28 of 2015 under Sections 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 of the IPC. The Enforcement Directorate also sought confiscation of the properties alleged to be involved in the offence of money laundering in terms of Section 8(5) of the PMLA. Pursuant to the said complaint, the learned court below took cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the PMLA by order dated 25.09.2018. It is also relevant to note that Opposite Party No.2 subsequently filed a supplementary complaint under Section 45 of the PMLA reiterating its earlier prayers.

4. Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for both Petitioners, submits that the impugned order of cognizance dated 25.09.2018 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He contends that the entire PMLA prosecution is founded upon Chhatrapur P.S. Case No.119 of 2015 and the consequent G.R. Case, in respect of which this Court, in CRLMC No.3068 of 2019, has already quashed the cognizance taken against Petitioner-Trilochan Mishra. According to him, once the foundational scheduled offence is nullified, the continuation of cognizance under the PMLA becomes legally impermissible not only qua Trilochan but equally qua Petitioner- Biranchi Narayan, because the alleged “proceeds of crime” arise if at all, from the same factual matrix and the same set of transactions. He submits that the coordinate Bench judgment in CRLMC No.3068 of 2019 has conclusively held that no prima facie case exists even to proceed in the scheduled offence, and therefore, the PMLA complaint, which is merely consequential, cannot survive on its own. It is argued that the law does not recognise a situation where one Petitioner is freed from the predicate offence but the other continues to face PMLA proceedings founded on the