Back
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
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 after downloading Cash TM, a microloan app, and uploading identification documents, he received a loan of Rs.2,292/- but was harassed by
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.
A quashed FIR does not automatically invalidate an ECIR; the ECIR is independent and requires substantive grounds for quashing based on the merits of the predicate offence under PMLA.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings are independent of the predicate offence and must proceed without delay, reflecting the urgency in addressing economic crimes.
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....
The trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is independent of any pending trial for the predicate offence, as affirmed by the court.
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
