SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(MP) 487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
B. P. Sharma, J.
M/S Jayshri Gaytri Food Products Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9694 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 11472 of 2025
Decided On : 18-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Priyankush Jain, Shri Shantanoo Saxena, and Shri Ashwin Rastogi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate

PMLA proceedings are not vitiated if a predicate offence continues to subsist in a primary FIR, even if a subsequent FIR covering the same facts is quashed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Scheduled Offence - Predicate Offence - Proceedings under the Act are dependent on the existence of a scheduled offence - If one FIR is quashed on technical grounds, such as avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, while another FIR covering the same set of facts and transactions continues to subsist, the jurisdictional foundation for proceedings under the Act is not obliterated - The quashing of a second FIR registered for the same cause of action, which is held to be in continuation of an earlier FIR, does not extinguish the underlying allegations or the predicate offence. (Paras 10 and 11)

(B) Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) - ECIR is not an FIR in the strict sense but is an internal document of the investigating agency for initiating investigation - Its validity cannot be tested on the same parameters as an FIR - The investigating agency is entitled to act on the basis of material available to it, including information derived from multiple sources. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
A company and its functionaries were accused of economic offences involving the manufacture and export of adulterated products using forged laboratory reports. Two FIRs were registered concerning these activities. The second FIR was subsequently quashed by the High Court because it was found to be in continuation of the first FIR, and registering two FIRs for the same cause of action was deemed impermissible. The petitioners challenged the proceedings initiated under the PMLA, arguing that since the second FIR (which served as a basis for the investigation) was quashed, the predicate offence was extinguished, thereby rendering the PMLA proceedings without jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the quashing of the second FIR was not based on the merits of the allegations but was a technical decision to prevent double jeopardy and multiplicity of proceedings. Since the first FIR continues to subsist and encompasses the same transactions and allegations, the scheduled offence remains active. Consequently, the investigating agency has a valid jurisdictional foundation to continue its proceedings.

Issues: Whether the quashing of one FIR, which formed part of the basis for an investigation under the PMLA, extinguishes the proceedings when another FIR covering the same facts and transactions continues to subsist.

Ratio Decidendi: The quashing of a secondary FIR on grounds of multiplicity does not consolidate to the obliteration of the scheduled offence if the primary FIR covering the same transactions remains valid. PMLA proceedings are sustained as long as a valid predicate offence exists, as the allegations are consolidated within the subsisting FIR.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • crime and sentencing
    • economic crimes
    • criminal conspiracy (Para 2, 4)
  • practice and procedure
    • constitutional remedies
      • writ jurisdiction (article 226) (Para 1, 3, 8, 17)
    • criminal procedure
      • investigation
      • quashing of fir (Para 3, 4, 10, 11, 16)

Table of Contents

1. Challenge to ECIR and PMLA proceedings after quashing of predicate FIR on ground scheduled offence no longer exists. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )

2. Petitioners argued PMLA proceedings fall with quashed FIR; Respondent argued earlier FIR continues to sustain scheduled offence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )

3. Petitions dismissed; quashing of FIR does not extinguish scheduled offence; PMLA investigation valid. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )

4. Does quashing of a predicate FIR on ground of multiplicity automatically invalidate PMLA proceedings?

No, if another FIR on the same transaction continues to subsist, the scheduled offence remains and PMLA investigation is valid. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 16 )

5. Is an ECIR equivalent to an FIR and subject to the same validity tests?

No, an ECIR is an internal document; its validity is not tested on the same parameters as an FIR. (Para 15 )

6. What is the legal effect of quashing an FIR on technical grounds rather than on merits for PMLA proceedings?

The allegations are not extinguished; they merge into the earlier FIR, sustaining the scheduled offence. (Para 10 , 11 )

7. Can precedents requiring clear nexus between property and proceeds of crime be applied when the predicate offence continues?

No, such precedents apply only when the predicate offence is absent or conclusively nullified, not when it continues. (Para 13 )

ORDER :

B. P. Sharma, J.

As the issue involved in both the petitions is common and identical, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. For the shake of convenience the facts are being taken from Writ Petition No.9694/2025.

The present writ petitions have been instituted invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of ECIR bearing No. ECIR/BHZO/13/2024 and all consequential proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter PMLA). The petitioners have, in substance, sought to contend that the very substratum of the proceedings under the PMLA stands extinguished in view of the quashing of FIR No.27/2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal, and therefore, the continuation of investigation by the Enforcement Directorate is without jurisdiction and amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

2. The facts of the case, as borne out from the record, indicate that allegations of serious economic offences have been made against the petitioner–company and its functionaries, involving manufacture and export of adulterated milk products using forged laboratory reports. Initially, FIR No.0492/2023 was registered at Police Station Habibganj under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC and subsequently, FIR No.27/2024 came to be registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, containing allegations of fabrication of laboratory reports and export of substandard products. On the basis of the said material and other information, the Directorate of Enforcement registered ECIR bearing No. ECIR/BHZO/13/2024 and initiated proceedings under the PMLA against the petitioners and their company.

3. It is not in dispute that FIR No.27/2024 came to be quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.22979/2024 by order dated 13.02.2025. However, the precise scope and effect of the said order form the central issue in the present case. The core question which arises for consideration is whether, after the quashing of FIR No.27/2024 registered by the EOW, the Enforcement Directorate is left without any valid source or material to continue its investigation under the PMLA, or whether the earlier FIR No.0492/2023 registered at Police Station Habibganj continues to provide the requisite jurisdictional foundation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the proceedings under the PMLA are entirely dependent without any existence a valid and subsisting scheduled offence, and that in the present case, the ECIR was admittedly registered on the basis of FIR No.27/2024. It is submitted that once the said FIR has been quashed by this Court, the very foundation of the ECIR stands obliterated and consequently, all proceedings under the PMLA must necessarily fall. Learned counsel further submits that the existence of a scheduled offence is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of the PMLA and in the absence of such an offence, the continuation of proceedings amounts to a jurisdictional error. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2016 SCC Online Del 475) to contend that there must be a clear nexus between the property and the alleged proceeds of crime, and that in the absence of a valid predicate offence, such nexus cannot exist. Further, reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Harish Fabiani and others v. Enforcement Directorate (2022 SCC Online Del 3121) to contend that the proceedings under the PMLA cannot be sustained independently in the absence of a valid scheduled offence. Learned counsel has also relied upon Jagati Publications Ltd. v. Enforcement Directorate , (2022 SCC Online TS 1605) and Manturi Shashi Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement , (2023 SCC Online TS 1098) to submit that the proceedings under the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top