2024:MHC:3345 VERDICTUM.

IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.08.2024

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

and
W.M.P.Nos.16016 to 16024 of 2024

Vijayraj Surana ... Petitioner in all W.Ps.

Vs.

Assistant Director,
Enforcement Directorate,
Chennai I Zonal Office,
Nos.3 & 4, Murugesa Naicker Office Complex
84, Greams Road, Thousands Light,
Chennai 600 006 ... Respondent in all W.Ps

Prayer in W.P.No.14782 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for

the records of the respondent in ECIR/CEZO-1/37/2020 dated 25.09.2020 and

quash all the proceedings arising therefrom as far as the petitioner is concerned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

since the predicate offence in FIR No.RC0782020E0005 dated 08.09.2020

registered by CBI, Bangalore was already quashed by the Hon'ble Karnataka

High Court in Crl.P.No.5333 of 2023 vide order dated 15.04.2024.

Prayer in W.P.No.14786 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for

the records of the respondent in ECIR/CEZO-1/05/2019 dated 27.12.2019 and

quash all the proceedings arising therefrom as far as the petitioner is concerned

since the predicate offence in FIR No.11/2019 dated 01.11.2019 registered by

CBI, Bangalore was already quashed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in

Crl.P.No.5333 of 2023 vide order dated 15.04.2024.

Prayer in W.P.No.14787 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for

the records of the respondent in ECIR/CEZO-1/42/2020 dated 24.12.2020 and

quash all the proceedings arising therefrom as far as the petitioner is concerned

since the predicate offence in FIR No.RC 078 2020 E0006 dated 08.10.2020

registered by CBI, Bangalore was already quashed by the Hon'ble Karnataka

High Court in Crl.P.No.4006 of 2024 vide order dated 25.04.2024.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Ragavacharyulu

in all WPs and Mr.M.R.Venkatesh,
for Mr.G.Guruprasath

For Respondent : Mr.A.R.L.Sundarasan. ASGOI

in all WPs Assisted by Mr.N.Ramesh,
Special Public Prosecutor for ED

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Table of Contents
I. FACTUAL MATRIX:...........................................4
II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:...........................6
III. REPLY BY RESPONDENT:....................................9
IV. DISCUSSIONS:............................................10
A) LEGAL GROUNDS ON WHICH FIR PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULED
OFFENCE WAS QUASHED:......................................10
B) SCHEDULED OFFENCE OF SECTION 447 OF THE COMPANIES ACT,
2013 IS STILL PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER:.............12
C) PMLA IS A SUI-GENERIS LEGISLATION:.....................14
D) SECTION 3 OF PMLA IS A STANDALONE PROVISION:...........16
E) ECIR CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH FIR:.......................19
F)DELIBERATIONS ON THE PRINCIPLE OF AUTOMATIC QUASHING OF
ECIR ONCE FIR STANDS QUASHED:.............................23
G)IMPLICATIONS OF AUTOMATIC QUASHING OF ECIR BASED ON FIR
QUASH:....................................................30
V. CONCLUSION:..............................................32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

Under assail are the proceedings of the Enforcement Directorate in ECIR

Nos.CEZO-I/05/2019 dated 27.12.2019, CEZO-I/37/2020-dated 25.09.2020

and CEZO-I/42/2020 dated 24.12.2020.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner under Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002, [hereinafter referred as 'PMLA'] complaint are

that they have obtained loans from IDBI Bank to the tune of Rs.1301.76 Crores

and Rs.1495.76 Crores from the same IDBI Bank and from the SBI Bank,

Rs.1188.56 Crores. The loan borrowed by the said companies have facilitated

mis-appropriation, manipulation of books of accounts through fictitious

accounts and conversion of property of SIL by way of No.(1) Capital advances

to potentially related party, (2) Sales and purchase with potentially related

properties (3) bilateral transactions with properties related amongst

themselves.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner and the company for the purpose of routing

of funds borrowed money from one Mr.Gowtham Raj Surana to the tune of

Rs.33,09,80,860/- for Global Industries, Rs.14,53,95,350/- for Prince

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

Enterprises and Rs.20,47,69,749/- for Supreme Corporation. Totally,

Rs.68,11,45,959. Similarly, from Mr.Shantilal Surana, a total sum of

Rs.62,65,19,112/- was borrowed from the above 3 companies, namely, for

Global Industries, Prince Enterprises, and for Supreme Corporation. The

similar transaction was done in the name of Mr.Vijayraj Surana to the tune of

Rs.74,65,14,732 /- and in the name of Mr.Dinesh Chand Surana to the tune of

Rs.80,99,23,739/-.

4. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the properties acquired

by M/s Karwalal and Company has been attached vide Provisional Attachment

Order No.09/2022, dated 01.08.2022, as it been derived from proceeds of crime

and confirmed by Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 27.01.2023

(O.C.No.1800/2022). The petitioner was also made as a defendant in the

impugned proceedings in O.C.No.1887 of 2023 because the properties in

possession of Mrs.Alka Surana, w/o. Mr.Vijayraj Surana (defendant No.7 in the

OC No.1887 of 2023) and Mr.Mitesh Surana S/o. Mr.Vijayraj Surana

(defendant 20 in the OC No.1887 of 2023) have been attached vide provisional

Attachment order No.17/22 date 26.12.2022 on the reasonable belief that the

same had been acquired out of the proceeds of crime generated out of the

commission of offences by the company, wherein Mr.Vijayraj Surana was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

promoters, Managing Director of M/s.Surana Corporation Limited and Director

in other firms. Against the said order of Adjudicating Authority, the petitioner

has filed an appeal before the Tribunal bearing No.6363/2023. With reference

to the above allegations, the Enforcement Directorate formed an opinion that

the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA is present.

II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

5. The factual matrix as narrated by the petitioner would reveal that 3

companies, namely, M/s.Surana Industries Limited, M/s.Surana Power Limited,

M/s.Surana Corporation Limited were incorporated and petitioner is a

shareholder. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seized gold stock of 400.47

Kgs, (approximately INR 150 Crores, during the relevant point of time) at

showroom of Surana Corporation Limited one of the group companies on

20.06.2012. CBI filed charge sheet on 03.08.2013 and registered FIR on

16.09.2013 to investigate the mode of import of the gold stock and retained the

seized gold. Serious Fraud Investigation agency registered complaint under

Section 212(6) of Companies Act against M/s.Surana Industries Limited and 14

Group Companies on 28.03.2019. In February 2020, CBI handed over 296 Kgs

gold to SBI as per the order of NCLT, Chennai. However, missing of 104 kgs

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

of Gold was not reported to NCLT, Chennai by liquidator or SBI or CBI till

August 2020. The petitioner claims to be the whistle blower for missing of 104

kgs of gold. He provided information regarding missing of gold and at that

point of time the Enforcement Directorate registered the impunged ECIR on

27.12.2019, 25.09.2020 and 24.12.2020.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.T.R.Ragavacharyulu, would

mainly contend that the High Court of Karnataka quashed the FIR registered by

CBI against the petitioner with reference to the scheduled offence on

15.04.2024. The CBI preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India, which is pending. Since the FIR has been quashed, the scheduled

offence is not in existence and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to be

exonerated from PMLA proceedings. The legal position has been well

enumerated and reiterated in paragraph 467(iv)(d) by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India and

others1., It is contended that the Apex Court in Vijay Mathanlal's case held that

the authorities under PMLA 2002 cannot prosecute any person on notional

basis or on the assumption that the scheduled offence has been committed

unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending

1. 2022 SCC online SC 929

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent

forum. In the present case, the scheduled offence has been quashed against the

petitioner. Mere pendency of an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court would

not extend any protection to the ECIR, which is impugned in the present writ

proceedings. The position has been further clarified by the Apex Court that in

the event of restoration of FIR by the Apex Court, the ECIR would also stand

restored and that being the legal position, the present writ petitions are to be

considered.

7. Secondly it is stated that the supplementary complaint filed under

44(1)(b)(ii) and 45 of the PMLA 2002 for the offence under Section 3 of PMLA

is unsustainable, since it was not filed by following due procedures. Though

Section 447 of the Companies Act has been inserted in the schedule to PMLA,

the same cannot be invoked in isolation in view of the fact that the original FIR

has been quashed and further the Enforcement Directorate has not conducted

any investigation for the purpose of prosecuting the petitioner under Section

447 of the Companies Act. In order to sustain the above grounds, the learned

counsel for the petitioner relied on paragraph 253 and 467(iv)(d) of Vijay

Madanlal's case cited supra.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

III. REPLY BY RESPONDENT:

8. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India,

Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, would strenuously oppose by stating that ECIR is not a

statutory document and an official document maintained by the Enforcement

Directorate for continuing their investigation and the ECIR has been filed based

on the FIR registered under the scheduled offence. Therefore, ECIR per se

would not provide cause for institution of writ proceedings under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.

9. The directions issued by the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal's case

cited supra, more specifically, 467(v)(d) must be read in conjunction with the

principles laid down in the said case in Paragraph Nos. 281 to 284 and 349.

The conclusion arrived at paragraph 467 by the Apex Court cannot be read in

isolation so as to quash the ECIR. The findings, principles and the scope

elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are to be taken into

consideration with reference to the grounds raised by the petitioner.

10. The learned Additional Solicitor General would further contend that

the process under PMLA was construed as standalone process. Once the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 9 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

scheduled offence is traced out and ECIR is filed, investigation commences

and a complaint has been filed under Section 44 and 45 of PMLA. Therefore,

the writ petition would be pre-mature since quashment of FIR has been

challenged by the CBI before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which is

pending. The Enforcement Directorate in the present case has filed a

supplementary prosecution complaint, wherein the proceeds of crime has been

elaborately enumerated by the Enforcement Directorate in paragraph 3.2 of the

Additional complaint. Thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.

11. The learned Additional Solicitor General relied on an order in the

case of N.Dhanraj Kochar and others vs. The Director, Directorate of

Enforcement, New Delhi2., wherein it is ruled that ECIR cannot be the subject

matter of judicial review under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

IV. DISCUSSIONS:

A) LEGAL GROUNDS ON WHICH FIR PERTAINING TO THE

SCHEDULED OFFENCE WAS QUASHED:

12. The petitioner mainly contended that the respondent cannot proceed

under PMLA in view of the quashment of predicate offence in FIR No.11/2019

2. Crl.O.P.No.SR.46376 of 2021 dated 27.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 10 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

dated 01.11.2019 by the Karnataka High Court vide order dated 15.04.2024.

The relevant order portion is reiterated as under;

“(iii) The impugned proceedings in FIR

No.11/2019 dated 01.11.2019 registered by the CBI,
BSFB, Bangalore insofar as it relates to the petitioner
in Crl.P.No.5354/2023 is hereby quashed.
Further Para-31 of the said order dated 15.04.2024
is reiterated below-

31. The Central Government in relation to the

same allegation against the petitioner and other
accused by order dated 9.4.2019 entrusted
investigation to the SFIO, and the SFIO after
investigation submitted a report, and thereafter, filed
a complaint before the Special Court established
under Section 435 of the Act, 2013. Therefore, the
SFIO alone has jurisdiction to try the offences
alleged against the petitioners.

13. The undisputed facts between the parties are that the FIR has been

registered on 09.09.2022 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under

Section 120(B) read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 13(2),

13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Based on the scheduled

offence, Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 11 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

investigation was commenced. It is not in dispute that complaint under Sections

44 and 45 of PMLA has been filed. Thereafter, supplementary complaint was

also filed invoking Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 on 12.06.2024. The

FIR was challenged before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court

quashed the FIR on the ground that the investigation pertaining to the same

allegation against the petitioner and other accused was entrusted to the Serious

Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), and the SFIO after investigation submitted a

report and thereafter filed a chargesheet / complaint before the Special Court

and the same is pending before XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

Therefore, the Court quashed the FIR No.11/2019 dated 01.11.2019 on the

ground that SFIO alone has jurisdiction to try the said offences.

B) SCHEDULED OFFENCE OF SECTION 447 OF THE COMPANIES

ACT, 2013 IS STILL PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER:

14. It is pertinent to note that in respect of other accused persons, the FIR

in predicate offence is still in force. And it is also to be noted that the SFIO

complaint still stands good. This SFIO complaint was registered on 28.03.2019

much before registration of FIR by the CBI on 01.11.2019 and ECIR on

27.12.2019. Meanwhile, the CBI has preferred an Appeal against the FIR quash

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 12 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

order passed in favour of the petitioner. In the time limit before the FIR was

quashed, the Enforcement Directorate investigation process was conducted and

a supplementary complaint was filed in the year 2024.

15. From the above facts, it is clear that the High Court of Karnataka

quashed the FIR and not the SFIO complaint. Therefore, the scheduled offence

under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 still stands good against the

companies namely M/s.Surana Industries Limited, M/s.Surana Power Limited,

M/s.Surana Corporation Limited. Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 is

also one of the scheduled offence under Part A of the schedule to PMLA. To

elaborate further Section 2(y) of the PMLA, 2002 reads as under;

“2(y) “Scheduled Offence” means- (i) the

offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or
(ii) the offences specified under Part B of the
Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is
one crore rupees or more; or (iii) the offences
specified under Part C of the Schedule.”

16. During the pendency of a Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)

proceeding, which is scheduled offence, it gives jurisdiction to the Enforcement

Directorate to investigate the matter and the ECIR cannot be stated to be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 13 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

without a predicate offence.

17. Therefore, the proceedings under section 447 of the Companies Act,

2013 is a scheduled offence under PMLA, 2002. It is not disputed that already

chargesheet / complaint has been filed under Section 447 of the Companies Act,

2013 on 09.09.2022 and the same is pending before the XV Additional City

Civil Court, Chennai. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner was arrested by

SFIO and is under judicial custody from 02.08.2022.

18. Therefore, the action of Respondent Department does not stand

vitiated as the predicate offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013

is still pending and not quashed. Therefore the prayer of quashing of the ECIR

and all subsequent proceedings appears to be misplaced one.

C) PMLA IS A SUI-GENERIS LEGISLATION:

19. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is a special enactment,

enacted with a specific purpose and object i.e., to track and investigate the

cases of money laundering. This Act is a complete code in itself with all in-built

mechanisms to deal with proceeds of crime. The primary focus of the

legislation is “Proceeds of Crime” with respect of scheduled offences

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 14 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

mentioned in the Act.

20. After investigation of the crime, the Respondent Department has to

investigate into whether the offence, as enunciated under Section 3 of PMLA

has been committed or not, and the adjudication, prosecution and trial under

PMLA is independent of the scheduled offence. The Respondent is the notified

Investigative Authority for PMLA only and not for the scheduled offence. Both

the proceedings are independent in nature according to the scope of the Act and

also the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case

cited supra. The said paragraph is reiterated below;

“269... From the bare language of Section 3 of

the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of
money-laundering is an independent offence
regarding the process or activity connected with the
proceeds of crime which had been derived or
obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or
in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or
activity can be in any form be it one of concealment,
possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as
much as projecting it as untainted property or
claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of
such process or activity connected with the proceeds
of crime would constitute offence of money-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 15 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do

with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence derived or obtained as a result of that crime
- except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as
a result of that crime.”

21. In a case where based on the scheduled offence Enforcement

Directorate initiated PMLA proceedings, conducted investigation, identified

“proceeds of crime” and filed statutory complaint under Sections 44 and 45,

then it is to be construed as Standalone Process within the parameters laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal.

D) SECTION 3 OF PMLA IS A STANDALONE PROVISION:

22. When the facts stand as it is, let us now consider the spirit of the

discussions made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the scope of Section

3 of PMLA. The discussion about Section 3 of PMLA commences from

paragraph 263 of Vijay Madanlal's judgment.

23. Importantly, in paragraph 281 of Vijay Madanlal's case cited supra,

the question discussed is, whether the offence under Section 3 is a standalone

offence. The observations reveal that the property must qualify the definition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 16 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

“proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA. All or whole of the crime

property linked to scheduled offence need not be regarded as proceeds of crime,

but all properties qualifying the definition of “proceeds of crime” under

Section 2(1)(u) will necessarily be crime properties. Indeed, in the event of

acquittal of the person concerned or being absolved from allegation of criminal

activity relating to scheduled offence, and if it is established in the Court of law

that the crime property in the concerned case has been rightfully owned

and possessed by him, such a property by no stretch of imagination can be

termed as crime property as ex-consequenti proceeds of crime within the

meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA. The deeper sense expressed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court would amplify that in the event of acquittal of a person

concerned or being absolved from the allegations of criminal activities, such

properties are excluded from the definition of proceeds of crime, if such

properties has been rightfully owned and possesed.

24. In paragraph 282 of Vijay Madanlal's judgment, it is clarified that the

authority of the Authorized Officer under PMLA to prosecute any person for

offence of money laundering gets triggered only if there exists “proceeds of

crime” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA and further it is

involved in any process of criminal activity. All the undisclosed properties

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 17 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

cannot be construed as proceeds of crime. Though it may attract tax provisions,

it would not fall under the definition of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u)

of PMLA. Importantly, if the offence so reported is a scheduled offence only in

that eventuality, the property recovered by the authorised officer partake the

colour of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act enabling him to

take further action under the PMLA.

25. Significantly, in paragraph 284 of Vijay Madanlal's judgment, it is

reiterated that the authority under PMLA, is to prosecute a person for offence

of money laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be

recorded in writing that the person is in possession of “ Proceeds of Crime”.

Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence

indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity

connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken

forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting

thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a

standalone process. Therefore, the live link between the scheduled offence and

PMLA proceedings would be relevant for initiation of proceedings under

PMLA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately considered initiation of PMLA

proceedings, for which it is a pre-condition that a scheduled offence is to be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 18 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

registered.

E) ECIR CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH FIR:

26. The ground of quashment of FIR to quash the ECIR cannot be taken

as a matter of principles or as an automatic ground for quashing the ECIR due

to the unique distinction between the FIR and ECIR. Further, FIR cannot be

equated with an ECIR. The scheduled offence is quintessential for initiation of

proceedings and recording of ECIR but both the offences cannot be placed on

the same footing. PMLA proceedings are distinct and the said Act is a complete

code in itself, whereas scheduled offences are tried under other laws. When two

documents are different and distinct in their own nature, a combined reading

and implication cannot be adduced to them.

27. ECIR is born from FIR, but once the ECIR is born, the umbilical cord

that connects the ECIR with FIR losses its relevance and the ECIR becomes an

independent document in itself. Consequently, a new life in the form of ECIR

emerges, which can breath on its own without the support of FIR. So, the FIR

and ECIR become two different documents and both tend to take shape on its

own, independent of each other.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 19 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

28. “Proceeds of Crime” is the focal point for an ECIR, whereas

scheduled offence is dealt with under the FIR. Further reliance is also placed

with the aid of judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India and Others cited

supra and Rajinder Singh Chada vs. Union of India3.. Both these judgments

have noted the distinction between FIR and ECIR. More so, ECIR is treated as

an internal document.

29. In Vijay Madanlal's case (supra), the relevant portion to support this

contention is as extracted below;

“457. Suffice it to observe that being a special

legislation providing for special mechanism
regarding inquiry/investigation of offence of money-
laundering, analogy cannot be drawn from the
provisions of 1973 Code, in regard to registration of
offence of money-laundering and more so being a
complaint procedure prescribed under the 2002 Act.
Further, the authorities referred to in Section 48 of
the 2002 Act alone are competent to file such
complaint. It is a different matter that the
materials/evidence collected by the same authorities
for the purpose of civil action of attachment of
3. W.P. (CRL) 562/2023 & CRL.M.A. 5126/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 20 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

proceeds of crime and confiscation thereof may be

used to prosecute the person involved in the process
or activity connected with the proceeds of crime for
offence of money-laundering. Considering the
mechanism of inquiry/investigation for proceeding
against the property (being proceeds of crime) under
this Act by way of civil action (attachment and
confiscation), there is no need to formally register an
ECIR, unlike registration of an FIR by the
jurisdictional police in respect of cognizable offence
under the ordinary law. There is force in the stand
taken by the ED that ECIR is an internal document
created by the department before initiating penal
action or prosecution against the person involved
with process or activity connected with proceeds of
crime. Thus, ECIR is not a statutory document, nor
there is any provision in 2002 Act requiring Authority
referred to in Section 48 to record ECIR or to furnish
copy thereof to the Accused unlike Section 154 of the
1973 Code. The fact that such ECIR has not been
recorded, does not come in the way of the authorities
referred to in Section 48 of the 2002 Act to commence
inquiry/investigation for initiating civil action of
attachment of property being proceeds of crime by
following prescribed procedure in that regard.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 21 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

30. Further, in the case of Rajinder Singh Chada vs. Union of India

cited supra, the Delhi High Court held as follows;

“32... Since the ECIR has not been equated

with a FIR and has been held to be an internal
document, there cannot possibly be a restriction to
bringing on record on any subsequent scheduled
offence registered by way of an FIR alleged to have
been committed in respect of the same transaction
which was the subject matter of such ECIR.
34 ...It is clarified that since this Court is of the
opinion that the ECIR, as explained in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary (supra) cannot be equated with
an FIR and as per the stand of the department, the
same is only for administrative purposes, there is no
impediment in taking the third FIR on record which
related to the same project forming the basis for
registration of the first two FIRs, resulting in
initiation of the impugned ECIR.”

31. When there are findings arrived at independently in both the FIR
and ECIR, can the Court completely disregard those findings and bring
the proceedings to an unjustified end just because one of the proceedings
was quashed on procedural / technical grounds without due impetus to the
substantive grounds? This question requires an in-depth consideration.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 22 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

F)DELIBERATIONS ON THE PRINCIPLE OF AUTOMATIC QUASHING

OF ECIR ONCE FIR STANDS QUASHED:

32. It shocks the conscience of the Court that in recent cases involving

money laundering, a certain pattern has emerged, whereby, the FIR quashed

through minor technical glitches or procedural irregularities and with that as a

ground they seek for quashing of ECIR also. The wordings in the final

summary portion of the Vijay Madanlal's judgment in paragraph 467 (5)(d) is

used in isolation without due consideration to the judgment as a whole to

wriggle away from the clutches of PMLA. The wordings in Vijay Madanlal's

case cannot be accorded a narrow meaning by relying only on the

summarisation towards the end of the judgment, but the observations in various

paragraphs and the findings made therein must be read in tandem to extract its

true essence. At the outset, this Court would clarify that we are neither

attempting nor intending to rewrite the Vijay Madanlal's judgment. This Court

is merely restraining from a pick and choose application of the principle

established in Vijay Madanlal case and rather, is for the complete harmonious

application of the judgment as a whole in letter and spirit. Any application of

principle, even if in its literal form paves way for injustice, then the Court is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 23 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

allowed to take a detour to expound the law in such a way which serves the

cause of justice. If the principles of automatic quashment of ECIR is adopted

arithmetically, the very purpose and objective of PMLA is defeated.

33. This point of contention in the present Petition falls within the

contours of the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay

Madanlal case. The Vijay Madanlal case extensively dealt with the validity of

different provisions in the PMLA, 2002. The observations made in the

Paragraph No.281 relevant to the case on hand is extracted below:

“281. The next question is: whether the offence

under Section 3 is a standalone offence? Indeed, it is
dependent on the wrongful and illegal gain of
property as a result of criminal activity relating to a
scheduled offence. Nevertheless, it is concerning the
process or activity connected with such property,
which constitutes offence of money-laundering. The
property must qualify the definition of “proceeds of
crime” under Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act. As
observed earlier, all or whole of the crime property
linked to scheduled offence need not be regarded as
proceeds of crime, but all properties qualifying the
definition of “proceeds of crime” under Section
2(1)(u) will necessarily be crime properties. Indeed,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 24 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

in the event of acquittal of the person concerned or

being absolved from allegation of criminal activity
relating to scheduled offence, and if it is established
in the court of law that the crime property in the
concerned case has been rightfully owned and
possessed by him, such a property by no stretch of
imagination can be termed as crime property and ex-
consequenti proceeds of crime within the meaning of
Section 2(1)(u) as it stands today. On the other hand,
in the trial in connection with the scheduled offence,
the Court would be obliged to direct return of such
property as belonging to him. It would be then
paradoxical to still regard such property as proceeds
of crime despite such adjudication by a Court of
competent jurisdiction. It is well within the
jurisdiction of the concerned Court trying the
scheduled offence to pronounce on that matter.”

34. A blanket application of the observations made in the aforementioned

judgement will not advance the object set out under the PMLA, 2002 and in

turn will defeat its primary object. The Vijay Madanlal case is a binding

precedent for all Courts below. And on careful application of the judgement,

analysing on a case to case basis, the output shall defer for each case and not

render the same result.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 25 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

35. Every case is marinated with different facts and circumstances and

the application of law should not only meet the ends of Justice, but should also

further the object behind the statute. The principles in Vijay Madanlal is set out

clear with respect to proceeds of crime under PMLA, 2002, as under;

“281. .........In the event of acquittal of the

person concerned or being absolved from allegation
of criminal activity relating to scheduled offence, and
if it is established in the court of law that the crime
property in the concerned case has been rightfully
owned and possessed by him, such a property by no
stretch of imagination can be termed as crime
property and ex-consequenti proceeds of crime within
the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) as it stands today..”

36. The Court's observations above hold that where a person is acquitted

or absolved of a criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence and on

establishing in a Court of law that the crime property is in legitimate ownership,

such property cannot be termed as crime property and in consequence the

PMLA offences loses its significance. Hence, to warrant a quashing of the

ECIR, mere quashing of the FIR on technical grounds by itself does not make

the ECIR liable to be quashed. That is not the observations set out in the Vijay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 26 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

Madanlal case. Rather in proceedings pertaining to the quashing of the FIR

in a scheduled offence, the Court must have dealt with not mere procedural

irregularities, but something more in the nature of substantive grounds.

37. The exact wordings of the Court culls out the object. That the accused

person should have been acquitted or absolved from the allegations of criminal

activity relating to the scheduled offence and that the crime property should be

rightfully owned and possessed by him. So the essence of the observations

made herein is that the accused person should be exonerated from the charges

levelled against him.

38. Though there are multiple grounds for quashing an FIR, and in one of

the many grounds an FIR can be quashed, when it comes to proceedings

pertaining to quashing the ECIR, the Court must examine the grounds based on

which FIR concerning the scheduled offence was quashed and after careful

examination on a case to case basis, if the FIR was quashed on substantive

grounds of absence of prima facie offence and not mere procedural

irregularities, then the ECIR loses its significance and is liable to be quashed.

Since the scheduled offence itself is not made out, then automatically no

predicate offence can hold good in the ECIR. However, if the FIR was quashed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 27 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

purely on technical grounds or procedural irregularities, then it is to be

understood that mere quashing of the FIR does not absolve the accused under

the PMLA proceedings and inturn cannot collapse the predicate offence in the

PMLA proceedings.

39. Further, when the PMLA proceedings is set in motion and prima

facie findings are already made, including completion of filing of chargesheet,

then an FIR quashed after this stage cannot be a viable ground to quash the

ECIR also. More so, the PMLA requires the presence of a scheduled offence to

initiate proceedings under the Act. So it also becomes a mandate that the

grounds on which scheduled offence was quashed is thoroughly examined

before rendering the PMLA offence ineffective.

40. This Court is not venturing into the grounds of quashing an FIR as

the principles pertaining to the same has already been laid down elaborately by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But the rationale here is to cull out the level of

bearing that a quashed FIR has on an proceedings challenging the ECIR. This

Court feels that all cases where FIR is quashed shall not automatically become

a ground for quashing an ECIR. Instead a case to case analysis is a pre requisite

for deciding on the sustenance of an ECIR. To put it in comprehensive terms,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 28 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

When the Court in an FIR quash proceedings has not delved into the merits of

the offence, but rather found technical errors on the face of it, then the Court

directs the quashing of the said FIR. The accused then goes on to challenge the

ECIR by placing reliance on the said FIR Quash order to quash the ECIR also.

But a reading of relevant paragraphs in the Vijay Madanlal's case clearly

showcases that this is not the object behind the said judgement. The final

summarisation, when read in tandem with the observations set out in

paragraphs of the judgement and also keeping in line with the explanation to

Section 44 of the PMLA, 2002, this Court comes to the irresistible conclusion

that cases where FIR pertaining to the scheduled offence is quashed it does not

automate the exoneration of the accused from the predicate offence. Rather FIR

quashes on grounds of mere technicalities or procedural irregularities in the

FIR, cannot by itself form a basis to grant an automatic quash of ECIR. Also in

the aforementioned instance, there needs to be a case to case examination of the

offence registered under the PMLA before the offence is rendered ineffectual.

41. Hence, the moot point for consideration whether all cases where FIR

has been quashed can pave way for quashing of ECIR? This Court feels that

each case must be tested on its own, in consonance with the Vijay madanlal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 29 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

judgement and a blanket application of the principle without due regard to the

facts of each and every case shall render both the judgement and the object of

the PMLA ineffective.

G)IMPLICATIONS OF AUTOMATIC QUASHING OF ECIR BASED ON

FIR QUASH:

42. In cases as such where on initiation of PMLA proceedings, prima

facie proceeds of crime has been traced, there arises a pertinent question as to

whether this Court can stall such proceedings inspite of preliminary findings of

the existence of proceeds of crime. The conscience of this Court is directed

towards delivery of justice and though the FIR of scheduled offence stands

quashed, it is merely on technicalities without analysing the merit of the

scheduled offence. Hence, when “proceeds of crime” is traced in a parallel

investigation by the Enforcement Directorate, this gives rise to another

question that, once proceeds of crime is prima facie unearthed can ECIR be

quashed on the ground that FIR was quashed. This clearly is an unjustified

approach.

43. In the present case, the FIR against the petitioner alone was quashed

by the Karnataka High Court, whereas the FIR against the other accuseds are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 30 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

still pending. The FIR No.11/2019 dated 01.11.2019 registered by the CBI was

quashed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Since for the same offence the

investigation was handed over to the SFIO, whereby the SFIO conducted the

investigation and filed a complaint / chargesheet before the Special Court,

which is still pending.

44. Due to the above development, since the SFIO was already entrusted

with the investigation by the Central Government vide order dated 09.04.2019

on the same set of allegations, the present FIR registered by the CBI was

quashed by the High Court citing the aforementioned reason. Hence, it is amply

clear that the High Court has quashed the FIR only on the ground that another

Investigating Agency is seized off the matter. The Court has not dealt with the

allegations nor tested the merits of the offences charged in the FIR. The Court

restricted itself only to the ground of want of jurisdiction. Hence the FIR was

quashed purely on this technical or procedural issue and not on substantive

grounds and has not made any findings as to the offences or the prima facie

allegations in the FIR. Therefore, the quashing of the FIR shall not warrant an

automatic quashing of ECIR. All the more, the predicate offence under Section

447 of the Companies Act, 2013, which is also a scheduled offence under the

PMLA still stands good and requires further investigation. Therefore, in view of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 31 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

the above ECIR is not liable to be quashed.

V. CONCLUSION:

45. Hence, we have arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the

petitioners have not made out any case for quashing of ECIR filed by

Enforcement Directorate. However, the Trial Court shall proceed uninfluenced

by the observations if any made on factual aspects and decide the issues based

on documents and evidence available on record and by following the due

process.

46. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No cost. Consequently,

connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]

28.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order

mrp/Jeni

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 32 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

To

1. The Assistant Director,

Enforcement Directorate,
Chennai I Zonal Office,
Nos.3 & 4, Murugesa Naicker Office Complex
84, Greams Road, Thousands Light,
Chennai 600 006

2. The Public Prosecutor.

High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 33 of 34
 VERDICTUM.IN

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

mrp/Jeni

W.P.Nos.14782, 14786 & 14787 of 2024

28.08.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 34 of 34