Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
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
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Vinay Choudary – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4671 OF 2024
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him in ECIR/HYZO/36/2020, dated 15.12.2020 by the Enforcement Directorate. The said investigation was initiated on the basis of the case filed by the Economic Offences Wing (for short ‘EOW’), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, for the offences under Section 120-B read with 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
02. Heard Ms. Shraddha Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Anil Prasad Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-
Enforcement Directorate. Perused the record.
03. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the predicate offence which was investigated
Without a predicate offense, proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be sustained, as established by the Supreme Court.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that if an accused is acquitted in a predicate offence, there can be no offence of money laundering against them, and the proceedings initiated ....
The judgment established that if a person is finally discharged or acquitted of a scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money laundering against him.
Discharge from offence of money laundering – Once a person is discharged or acquitted from scheduled offence, very foundation gets knocked out and charge of Money Laundering will not survive as there....
Money laundering proceedings can continue even if the predicate offence is quashed against one accused, as long as allegations and requisite material exist against others involved.
(1) Scheduled offences – When predicate offence is not in existence, ED cannot continue its investigation on proceeds of crime emanating out of predicate offence.
(2) Power conferred on High Court....
The court established that the closure of a predicate offence negates the basis for any subsequent money laundering investigation under the PML Act.
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.
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