9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Sunder Mohan, J.) The 3rd accused, facing trial in Spl. S.C. No. 6 of 2023 on the file of the learned XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA') Cases, Chennai, on the complaint filed by the respondent herein, has preferred the above quash petition. He has also filed the above writ petition to quash the order dated 06.03.2023 in F.No. ECIR/CEZO-1/39/2021 and to consider his representation dated 09.03.2023, to give no objection for him to claim compensation that was deposited for acquiring his lands by the authorities of Chennai Metro Rail Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'CMRL'). 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2018 was registered by Central Crime Branch, Chennai, for the offence under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC on the complaint given by one Sathak Ahmed Shaw, S/o. M.S. Hameed (de-facto complainant in Cr.No.815 of 2006), alleging that the petitioner and others cheated the de-facto complainant by entering into a joint venture with another company. (f) The petitioner and others filed quash petitions before this Court in Crl. O.P. Nos.7 325, 11095, and 11427 of 2018, praying for the quashing of FIR in Cr.No.73 of 2018. This Court, by order dated 15.02.2020, quashed the said FIR. It is reported that this order has not been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (g) Similarly, another FIR was registered against the petitioner and othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Enforcement Directorate. 4. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned complaint in Crl.O.P.No.28042 of 2023 is not maintainable in view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement [MANU/SC/1271/2023], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 120-B of IPC would become a scheduled offence only if the criminal conspiracy is to commit any offence included in parts A, B or C to the schedule to the PMLA. (ii) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, the complaint only refers to 120B of IPC (i.e) conspiracy to commit the offence under Section 409 of IPC, which is not a scheduled o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is on the basis that the petitioner was convicted for the predicate offences under Sections 120B, 409 r/w 109 of the IPC. There is no dispute with regard to the said fact. The offence under Section 409 of the IPC is not a scheduled offence. The question is whether the respondent can maintain the complaint if the predicate offence is the offence of criminal conspiracy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court answered this question in Pavana Dibbur's case [cited supra]. The relevant observations are extracted hereunder. "25. The legislative intent which can be gathered from the definition of the scheduled offence under clause (y) of sub- Section (1) of Section 2 of the PMLA is that every crime which may generate proceeds of crime need not be a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not included in the Schedule a scheduled offence by applying Section 120-B. Therefore, in our view, the offence under Section 120-B of IPC included in Part A of the Schedule will become a scheduled offence only if the criminal conspiracy is to commit any offence already included in Parts A, B or C of the Schedule. In other words, an offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC will become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence which is otherwise a scheduled offence. 26. Coming back to the facts of the case, in the charge sheets filed in the alleged scheduled offences, there is no allegation of the commission of criminal conspiracy to commit any of the offences included in the Schedule. As pointed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acks jurisdiction under the PMLA, the communications sent to the Bank to withhold the portion of the compensation amount payable to the petitioner by the CMRL, also cannot be sustained. As stated earlier, during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents passed a provisional attachment order dated 23.11.2023 bearing F.No.ECIR/CEZO-1/39/2021. Even in the said provisional attachment order, the respondent has stated that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 120B of the IPC. The relevant portion reads as follows: "17. Investigation revealed that Shri Dhanraj Kochar and his family members in connivance with the said three Authorized Signatories of M/s. D R Foundations and Estates Pvt. Ltd. cheated Shri M.S Hameed throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
