9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt had quashed the proceedings against the petitioner by an order dated 23.04.2024. The allegation in the said case is that A1 to A7 have entered into a criminal conspiracy in the commission of offence relating to allotment of housing plots under Government Discretionary Quota; that A1 and A2 were allotted lands under the said quota; that the petitioner, even before the sale deed was executed in her favour, had handed over the possession of the plot to A5 and entered into a joint venture agreement with A5 and unjustly enriched herself. This Court has, in similar cases, expressed its view that the proceedings under the PMLA 2002 cannot proceed further, once the FIR/Final Report relating to the predicate offence is quashed. The law is well s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner/A2 is that the ECIR proceedings stems out of an FIR, which was registered in Crime No.7 of 2011, which culminated into a final report in C.C.No.14 of 2019 and the same was quashed against the petitioner, by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.04.2024 made in S.L.P. (Criminal) No(s).13304 of 2023. 3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent opposed the prayer sought for by the petitioner and submitted that the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA, 2002'] is a stand alone offence and even if a person is not an accused in the predicate offence, he/she could still be prosecuted for an offence under the PMLA, 2002. 4. We have considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 passed by the High Court on a petition filed by the accused no. 5 praying for quashing the proceedings in CC No.14/2019. By the said judgment, the High Court has quashed the same as against the accused no.5. When we made a query to the learned senior counsel representing the respondent whether the State has challenged the said decision, on instructions, he stated that the State has not challenged the said decision. A perusal of the findings recorded in paragraph nos.10, 11 and 12 of the said judgment shows that the case of the present appellant is on par with the case of the accused no.5 and there is no material factual distinction between the allegations against these two accused. Therefore, even the case of the appellant will be governe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
