Summary
Conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is a PMLA scheduled offence only where its object is itself scheduled. The complaint alleged conspiracy to commit only unscheduled offences, leaving no scheduled offence, proceeds of crime or Section 3 case. Absence of cognizance did not require a futile remand for preliminary scrutiny. The complaint was quashed as to Anwar Dhebar and Arun Pati Tripathi; other petitions were disposed of. Possible proceedings on another FIR remained open, with specified interim protection continued for three weeks.
Issues
- Whether conspiracy to commit unscheduled offences supplied the predicate for money laundering.
- Whether the absence of cognizance prevented quashing a legally deficient complaint.
- What relief applied to the different petitioners and possible separate proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(1)(u), 2(1)(y) and 3, Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002A scheduled offence is necessary for proceeds of crime, and proceeds of crime are necessary for a Section 3 offence; none existed on this complaint’s alleged predicates. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 7)
- Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860Following Pavana Dibbur, conspiracy is scheduled for PMLA purposes only when directed to commission of an offence specifically in the Schedule. (¶¶ 2, 3)
- Sections 44(1)(b) and 46(1); CrPC Sections 200–204, Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002The Special Court must scrutinise whether a complaint makes out a prima facie offence and dismiss under Section 203 if it does not; remittal for that exercise would be empty formality here. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
Held
- Pavana Dibbur requires that the object of the alleged Section 120B conspiracy be a specifically scheduled offence. Adding conspiracy to unscheduled Income-tax Act and IPC offences did not convert them into a PMLA predicate. (¶¶ 2, 3)
- Without a scheduled offence, there could be no proceeds of crime within Section 2(1)(u), and consequently no Section 3 money-laundering offence on this complaint. (¶¶ 4, 7)
- The Special Court must apply its mind to the complaint’s prima facie sufficiency under the applicable Sections 200–204 procedure, dismissing under Section 203 where no case exists. But the asserted absence of cognizance did not preclude quashing here, because requiring preliminary scrutiny of this incurably deficient predicate would serve no purpose. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
- The complaint was quashed insofar as it concerned Anwar Dhebar, the second petitioner in WP(Crl.)208/2023, and Arun Pati Tripathi in WP(Crl.)216/2023. Petitions 153/2023 and 217/2023 were disposed of because their petitioners were not accused in the complaint. No costs were ordered. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The legality of possible PMLA proceedings based on another FIR was expressly left open. The specified 7 August 2023 interim order in petitions 153/2023 and 208/2023 continued for three weeks to permit recourse to appropriate proceedings, with rights and contentions reserved. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Result
WP(Crl.)208/2023 partly allowed and 216/2023 allowed; complaint quashed as to Dhebar and Tripathi. Petitions 153/2023 and 217/2023 disposed of. Separate-proceeding issues reserved; specified interim order continued three weeks; no costs.