Money laundering charges under PMLA require clear evidence linking individuals to a scheduled offence, which was absent in the petitioners' case, leading to quashing of proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for quashing the proceedings arising out of complaint No.ECIR/CDZO/04/2015 dated 24.09.2015 filed under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 qua the petitioners' as well as the order dated 30.06.2020 passed by the Special Judge, PMLA, vide which cognizance is taken in the second supplementary prosecution complaint No.ECIR/CDZO/04/2015 titled as 'Directorate of Enforcement vs Smt. Sona Bansal and others', filed by respondent No.2 - Directorate of Enforcement. It is also prayed that respondent No.1 - CBI and respondent No.2 - Directorate of Enforcement be further directed to act in co-ordination and harmony with each other during the course of investigation relating to the cases of sale and purchase of land in Manesar.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioner No.1 is engaged in the business of real estate, commodity trading and stock trading for the last 30 years whereas petitioner No.2 is engaged in food processing and real estate business. It is further submitted that both the petitioners were acquainted with one Lalit Modi for the last about 20 years and he was advising the petitioners to make certain investment in the real estate. On the asking of Lalit Modi, the petitioners have purchased and then sold certain properties in an around NCR Delhi during this period. In the year 2004, the petitioners along with one Raj Kumar Arora and Lalit Modi became promoters of M/s. Sheel Buildcon Private Limited, Progressive Buildtech Private Limited and Ecotech Buildcon Private Limited. All the 03 companies were land owning companies. The shareholding of the petitioners and Raj Kumar Arora was equally divided and the companies were to engage in land aggregation.

3. Lalit Modi was having shareholding of 10% in all the 03 companies as he was having vast experience in that field and was the sole responsible person to manage the affairs of the 03 land owning companies. The decision relating to sale and purchase of the land on behalf of the companies were exclusively taken by him. Thereafter, the shareholding of the petitioners and Raj Kumar Arora were reduced to 30% each in the aforesaid companies. Subsequently, Lalit Modi purchased the entire shareholding of Raj Kumar Arora and became 40% shareholder whereas the petitioners remain shareholder of 30% each as shareholding in the said companies. It is also submitted that from 25.11.2004 to 25.11.2005, Lalit Modi was solely managing the 03 land owning companies and he purchased certain land in Manesar, District Gurugram on the prevalent market rate which was much higher than the circle rate fixed by the Collector. The sole purpose of purchasing the land was bona fide with legitimate source of income duly reflected in the income tax returns. The purchases were made through sale deeds which were duly registered on payment of requisite stamp duty and registration charges.

4. It is stated that Haryana State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'HSIIDC) made a proposal in the year 2004 to acquire the land, in question and the State Government issued a notification dated 27.08.2004 under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (in short 'the Act of 1894'). The notification was for setting up of an industrial model township in village Manesar, Naurangpur and Lakhnoula in District Gurugram, measuring about 912 acres. Later on, the