BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA CRL.RC(MD) No.1697 of 2025 Smt.Harshitha P Patel : Petitioner/Petitioner/Accused Vs.

The Directorate of Enforcement, Represented by its Deputy Director, Madurai Sub Zonal Office, Madurai.

(in ECIR/MDSZO.5.2018) : Respondent/ Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 17/10/2025 in Crl.M.P No.179 of 2025 in CC No. 12/2021 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai and to set aside the same and pass further or other orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan For Respondent : Mr.K.R.Laxman Special Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by R.POORNIMA, J.]

This Criminal Revision is filed against the impugned order, dated 17/10/2025 passed in Crl.MP No.179 of 2025 in CC No.12 of 2021 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge for CBI cases, Madurai and to set aside the same.

2.The petitioner herein was arrayed as A10 in the final report filed by the Directorate of Enforcement, Madurai, the respondent herein for the offences punishable under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 on the ground that she had availed Rs.75 Lakhs towards Agricultural Crop Loan (CCCK) in the individual capacity. After availing the loan, funds were transferred to various business accounts of the group concerns where she or her family members were stake holders. Later on, the loan funds were siphoned off. The accused, thereby committed the scheduled offence and had derived proceeds of crime and thereafter, siphoned the proceeds of crime. Proceeds of crime was subsequently concealed and projected as untainted and had committed the offence of Money Laundering Act as contemplated under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002.

3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the petitioner is an house wife by profession who is entirely dependent on her family for financial support; She has no direct or indirect involvement in any business operations, financial dealings, or banking transactions; Being a Homemaker with limited education, she does not possess knowledge of complex business practices, banking procedures or legal regulations, which further establishes her complete disconnection from the alleged financial transactions of this case.

4.The learned counsel further argued that there is no mens rea, intent, knowledge or direct involvement of the petitioner in the alleged money laundering activities. The three stage test for money laundering (1)commission of scheduled offences; (2)generation of proceeds of crime from such offence; and (3)projecting such proceeds as untainted money. None of the above stages would be established against the petitioner and she could not be prosecuted as an accused person primarily for the reason that there is no case of money-laundering act at the first instance as there is no predict offence in the instant case. It is a case of default in repaying the loans, for which the de-facto complainant at any time could proceed under the provision of SARFAESI Act and IBC, 2016. It is also argued that mechanical implication of the petitioner without any credible evidence violates the principles of natural justice and due process guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further more, Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees the presumption of innocence which is violated by mechanically implicating the petitioner without any evidence.

5.The respondent filed a counter stating that the petitioner obtained Rs.75,00,000/- towards Agricultural Crop Loan (CCCK) in her individual capacity and the Bank Transaction reveals that the funds were transferred to various business accounts of the group concerns where the petitioner and her family members were stake holders. Later,