Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
K. SUJANA
Smartcoin Financials Private Limited, Through Mr Shashank Mundra, Authorised Representative – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director, O/o. Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad Zonal Office, Hyderabad – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
(K. Sujana, J.)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in ECIR/HYZO/04/2021 dated 18.01.2021.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-Company, represented by Mr. Shashank Mudhra, is engaged in microfinance business in India. It is being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate based on an FIR filed under various sections, including 420, 506 of IPC, Section 67 of IT Act, 2008, and Section 3 of Telangana Money Lenders Act, 1349F. The Company seeks to quash proceedings under the Prohibition of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, stemming from ECIR No.ECIR/HYZO/04/2021. The FIR, registered by Cyber Crime, Cyberabad, implicated the petitioner-Company i.e., Smartcoin Application. The Company aims to nullify these proceedings initiated by respondent No.1.
3. On 23.12.2020, Sri K. Satish filed a complaint with Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionate, leading to FIR No.1187 of 2020. He alleged that
Without a predicate offense, proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained, as established by the Supreme Court.
Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not sustainable without a registered scheduled offence, as established by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
FIR and ECIR become two different documents and both tend to take shape on its own, independent of each other.
The court established that the offense of money laundering under PMLA cannot exist independently of a scheduled offense.
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....
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....
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 Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings cannot survive if the predicate offences linked to them are closed by the court, indicating the non-existence of 'proceeds of crime'.
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