Money laundering complaint survives quashing where property-linked allegations and burden under the statute support a prima facie case.

A criminal complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was held not liable to be quashed at the Section 482 stage where the allegations showed scheduled offences against the principal accused and investigation had traced immovable properties in the names of the accused and family members. The Court held that no roving factual enquiry could be undertaken into each FIR to test whether pecuniary gain was derived, because the FIRs only triggered the money-laundering inquiry. It also noted that the definition of money laundering is wide, the explanation to Section 3 reflects that breadth, and Section 24 places the burden on the accused to show absence of proceeds of crime.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the petitioner, who was arrayed as an accused on the basis of properties standing in her name, was liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that there were no proceeds of crime or that she had no knowledge of the alleged source of the properties.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed that serious scheduled offences had been registered against the principal accused, that investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had unearthed multiple immovable properties in the names of the accused and their family members, and that the properties standing in the petitioner's name were of substantial value compared with the stated purchase price. At the stage of quashing, the Court held that it was not open to undertake a roving factual enquiry into each FIR to decide whether pecuniary gain had been derived, since the FIRs only triggered the money-laundering investigation. The Court further held that the statutory definition of money laundering was wide, that the explanation added to Section 3 clarified the legislative intent, and that the burden under Section 24 lay on the accused to show absence of proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed a prima facie case and was not liable to be quashed.

---