Live
- Aid group resumes activities at famine-hit camp in Sudan
- Kishan Reddy Vows to End BRS and Congress Influence in Telangana, Criticizes CM's Governance
- Punjab bypolls: Bittu twisting words for political gains, says Congress nominee
- Punjab CM to administer oath to over 10,000 sarpanches on Friday
- BJP Core Committee Plans Protests Against State Government’s Failures
- Mulugu Collector Divakar's Facebook Hacked Again, Cyber Criminals Send Fraudulent Messages Asking for Money
- The Role of Genetics in Obesity: Can Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Help?
- Deputy CM Bhatti Vikramarka's Visit to Khammam District: Lays Foundation for Road Works Worth Rs. 8.9 Crore
- ED Files Charge Sheet in Agrigold Case, Attaches Assets Worth Over ₹4,100 Crores
- Mushfiqur Rahim ruled out of Afghanistan ODIs with finger fracture
Delhi HC quashes PMLA proceedings based on FIRs quashed post settlement
The Delhi High Court has quashed proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against an accused.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has quashed proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against an accused.
The decision was based on the fact that after two FIRs initially registered against the accused were subsequently quashed and compounded after a settlement between the parties.
Justice Amit Sharma, hearing petitioner Rajinder Singh Chadha's plea seeking the quashing of all actions and proceedings related to the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the ED in 2019, said that once an FIR for a scheduled offence has been quashed, the scheduled offence ceases to exist.
Therefore, in the absence of a scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money laundering related to the same.
The court stated that there could be no prosecution under the PMLA for the scheduled offences in the quashed FIRs.
The two FIRs in question that were quashed were initially registered by the Economics Offences Wing (EOW), alleging non-possession of flats despite payment made in 2006-07 by the complainants.
The accused, associated with company Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech, was accused of siphoning funds collected from the complainants in his capacity as a Director.
While the court quashed proceedings related to the first two FIRs, it declined to quash a third FIR registered by EOW in the same year. This third FIR, registered on similar allegations as the previous ones, was taken on record for further investigation in the ECIR under consideration. The court clarified that even if separate FIRs are registered based on complaints from different home-buyers or investors, each FIR cannot be considered a separate cause of action for the registration of different ECIRs.
The third FIR still pertained to scheduled offences, and compounding with some complainants would not be a ground for quashing the FIR, the judge said. The court noted that partial compounding/quashing is permissible in cases involving multiple complainants in an FIR being investigated by local police.
However, the existence of scheduled offences in the third FIR prevented its quashing for the purposes of PMLA investigation.
