COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Table of Contents I. FACTUAL MATRIX:...........................................4 II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:...........................6 III. REPLY BY RESPONDENT:....................................9 IV. DISCUSSIONS:............................................10 A) LEGAL GROUNDS ON WHICH FIR PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULED OFFENCE WAS QUASHED:......................................10 B) SCHEDULED OFFENCE OF SECTION 447 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 IS STILL PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER:.............12 C) PMLA IS A SUI-GENERIS LEGISLATION:.....................14 D) SECTION 3 OF PMLA IS A STANDALONE PROVISION:...........16 E) ECIR CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH FIR:.......................19 F)DELIBERATIONS ON THE PRINCIPLE OF AUTOMATIC QUASHING OF ECIR ONCE FIR STANDS QUASHED:.............................23 G)IMPLICATIONS OF AUTOMATIC QUASHING OF ECIR BASED ON FIR QUASH:....................................................30 V. CONCLUSION:..............................................32 Under assail are the proceedings of the Enforcement Directorate in ECIR Nos.CEZO-I/05/2019 dated 27.12.2019, CEZO-I/37/2020-dated 25.09.2020 and CEZO-I/42/2020 dated 24.12.2020.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, [hereinafter referred as 'PMLA'] complaint are that they have obtained loans from IDBI Bank to the tune of Rs.1301.76 Crores and Rs.1495.76 Crores from the same IDBI Bank and from the SBI Bank, Rs.1188.56 Crores. The loan borrowed by the said companies have facilitated mis-appropriation, manipulation of books of accounts through fictitious accounts and conversion of property of SIL by way of No.(1) Capital advances to potentially related party, (2) Sales and purchase with potentially related properties (3) bilateral transactions with properties related amongst themselves.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner and the company for the purpose of routing of funds borrowed money from one Mr.Gowtham Raj Surana to the tune of Rs.33,09,80,860/- for Global Industries, Rs.14,53,95,350/- for Prince Enterprises and Rs.20,47,69,749/- for Supreme Corporation. Totally, Rs.68,11,45,959. Similarly, from Mr.Shantilal Surana, a total sum of Rs.62,65,19,112/- was borrowed from the above 3 companies, namely, for Global Industries, Prince Enterprises, and for Supreme Corporation. The similar transaction was done in the name of Mr.Vijayraj Surana to the tune of Rs.74,65,14,732 /- and in the name of Mr.Dinesh Chand Surana to the tune of Rs.80,99,23,739/-.

4. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the properties acquired by M/s Karwalal and Company has been attached vide Provisional Attachment Order No.09/2022, dated 01.08.2022, as it been derived from proceeds of crime and confirmed by Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 27.01.2023 (O.C.No.1800/2022). The petitioner was also made as a defendant in the impugned proceedings in O.C.No.1887 of 2023 because the properties in possession of Mrs.Alka Surana, w/o. Mr.Vijayraj Surana (defendant No.7 in the OC No.1887 of 2023) and Mr.Mitesh Surana S/o. Mr.Vijayraj Surana (defendant 20 in the OC No.1887 of 2023) have been attached vide provisional Attachment order No.17/22 date 26.12.2022 on the reasonable belief that the same had been acquired out of the proceeds of crime generated out of the commission of offences by the company, wherein Mr.Vijayraj Surana was promoters, Managing Director of M/s.Surana Corporation Limited and Director in other firms. Against the said order of Adjudicating Authority, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal bearing No.6363/2023. With reference to the above allegations, the Enforcement Directorate formed an opinion that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA is present.

II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

5. The factual matrix as narrated by the petitioner would reveal that 3 companies, namely, M/s.Surana Industries Lim