9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2018 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2022 - Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.Prakash And Honourable Mr. Justice A.A.Nakkiran For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthic, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Adithya Varadarajan for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For the Respondent : Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil Special Public Prosecutor [ED] ORDER P.N.PRAKASH, J . This petition has been filed seeking to quash the complaint in C.C.No.14 of 2017 in ECIR/11/CEZO/2011 (VSK) on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai (Special Court constituted under section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) qua the petitioner. 2. The minimum facts that are required for deciding this petition are as under : 2.1. The subject matter of this litigation is a vacant land with a shed measuring 67 cents in survey Nos.47/1 and 47/2 in Valsaravakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai (for brevity the subject land ), which lawfully belonged to one Kamalakannan. 2.2. The said Kamalakannan sold 33.5 cents out of 67 cents of the subject land to one Alamelu on 06.07.1973 vide document No.2395 of 1973 on the file of the SRO, Kodambakkam. Similarly, he sold the balance of 33.5 cents of the subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Poonamallee, against Mangalam and Alamelu, for a declaration that the subject land belongs to him as a legitimate lessee. Mangalam filed a suit in O.S.No.372 of 2008 in the Court of the District Munsif, Poonamallee, against K.P.R.Ramanathan. 2.8. The frauds reached such great heights that on a complaint given by D.Nagarajan, husband of Mangalam, the CCB, Chennai, registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2009 against K.G.Ramesh Raj and five others, for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 461, 474, 420 read with 120-B IPC. 2.9. After completing the investigation in Crime No.34 of 2009, the CCB filed a final report in C.C.No.5718 of 2010 in the Court of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, against the six accused named in the FIR, for the aforesaid offences. 2.10. While all these were happening, Naidu Amrutesh Reddy, the petitioner herein, also put his hat into the ring, by coming forward to purchase the subject land from one Suruli Andavar, who represented to the former that he has title to the subject land via a sale deed dated 12.04.1967, registered as document No.1427 of 1967 on the file of the SRO, Saidapet. 2.11. On 09.03.2011, the Enforcement Directorate regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in that, Suruli Andavar had fabricated a sale deed dated 12.04.1967 as if one Kamalakannan had sold the subject land to him (Suruli Andavar); with the connivance of the registration officials, Suruli Andavar gave a registration number to that fabricated document as document No.1427/1967; then Suruli Andavar and the registration officials had inserted document No.1427/1967 in the records of the office of the Sub-Registrar and therefore, the encumbrance certificates also started reflecting the existence of the fabricated document, viz ., document No.1427/1967; believing that Suruli Andavar is the lawful owner of the subject land, Naidu Amrutesh Reddy paid ₹ 4.33 crores to Suruli Andavar and purchased the property by a deed of sale dated 10.11.2011 registered as document No.6266/2011; only thereafter, did Naidu Amrutesh Reddy realise that the subject land was already the subject matter of a criminal case in CCB Crime No.34/2009 and C.C.No.5718 of 2010 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet; when the real owners viz ., Mangalam and Alamelu sisters came to know of the sale deed document No.6266/2011, they have filed a suit in O.S.No.117/2012 in the District Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re sufficient materials to prosecute Naidu Amrutesh Reddy for the offence u/s.3 r/w 4 of the PML Act, dehors, the affidavit dated 14.03.2022 that has been filed by him. 9. A complete reading of the complaint discloses as to how various persons had indulged in attempting to grab the subject land belonging to Mangalam and Alamelu sisters at various stages and the same has been set out in detail. Coming to the money trail, in paragraph No.8.1 of the impugned complaint, it is stated as follows: '8.1. In terms of the Sale Deed dated 10.11.2011 registered as Document No.6266 of 2011 of SRO, Virugambakkam executed by Shri T.Suruli Andavar for the conveyance of the aforesaid land of extent 68 cents in Survey No.47/1 and 47/2 of Valasarawakkam Village to Shri Naidu Amrutesh Reddy the total sale consideration of ₹ 4,33,00,000/- was pronounced to have been disbursed by the buyer as detailed hereunder: S.No. Receipient Mode Date Amount 1. T.Suruli Andavar Cheque No.000010 dated 4.3.2011 of Bank of Baroda 1,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... davar for purchasing the subject land under sale deed bearing document No.6266/2011. There are no materials to show that he had, in any manner, generated proceeds of crime by dealing with the subject land and has projected the same as untainted money. In the impugned complaint, the proceeds of crime is shown as the subject land, which has been purchased by Naidu Amrutesh Reddy under a sale deed bearing document No.6266/2011 from Suruli Andavar, who was not the actual owner. For fastening criminal liability u/s.3 r/w 4 of the PML Act, the following ingredients are necessary: (a) a criminal activity should have been committed; (b)from the criminal activity, some money (proceeds of crime) should have been generated; (c) the proceeds of crime, so generated, should have been projected as untainted one. 12. In this context, it may be relevant to refer to para 11 in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India and Another (2018) 11 SCC 1 : 11. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, it is important to first understand what constitutes the offence of money laundering. Under Section 3 of the Act, the kind of persons responsible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
