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
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
K. SURENDER
Manturi Shashi Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. Criminal Petition No.13439 of 2018 is filed by A1 and Criminal Petition No.2686 of 2021 is filed by A2 seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.342 of 2018 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Since both the petitioners are accused in the same case, they are being heard together and disposed by way of this Common Order.
2. Charge sheet was filed against these petitioners and others by the Patancheru Police. According to the prosecution, in respect of purchase of land, the petitioners herein and other accused projected A3 as real owner of a property and entered into an agreement of sale. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.40.00 lakhs initially on 20.05.2009 and another Rs.45.00 lakhs on 24.06.2009. The police arrested the accused for defrauding the complainant. The accused forging the signatures and thumb impressions of one Shyam Kumar, offered the land for sale and A3 impersonated as the owner Shyam Kumar. Out of the total agreed amount, Rs.85.00
The judgment established that if a person is finally discharged or acquitted of a scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money laundering against him.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that if an accused is acquitted in a predicate offence, there can be no offence of money laundering against them, and the proceedings initiated ....
Money laundering proceedings can continue even if the predicate offence is quashed against one accused, as long as allegations and requisite material exist against others involved.
Without a predicate offense, proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained, as established by the Supreme Court.
Money laundering is a standalone offence under PMLA, independent of scheduled offences; involvement in proceeds of crime can lead to prosecution even if not charged with the underlying crime.
Economic offences cannot be quashed at the investigation stage based on an agreement between the parties, as per the interpretation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and relevant case l....
The main legal point established is that if a person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there....
The offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, which has nothing ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article