Writ jurisdiction and money-laundering attachment: statutory remedies and surviving predicate allegations barred interference

Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provided a complete remedial framework of provisional attachment, adjudication, and appellate review, especially because the challenge involved disputed factual questions. The Court also held that partial discharge in the connected criminal case did not extinguish the basis for money-laundering proceedings or the provisional attachment, since other allegations, including conspiracy and cheating, continued to survive and the existence of proceeds of crime remained in dispute. The writ petition was therefore rejected, leaving the statutory process undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition challenging the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate and adjudicatory remedies; (ii) whether the partial discharge of the petitioner in the criminal case extinguished the basis for the money-laundering proceedings and the provisional attachment.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate and adjudicatory remedies.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provides provisional attachment, adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and further appeal to the High Court. The challenge to the provisional attachment and the connected complaint involved disputed questions of fact and fell within that statutory mechanism. The availability of an efficacious alternate remedy, coupled with the nature of the reliefs sought, weighed against exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ remedy was held not maintainable on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the partial discharge of the petitioner in the criminal case extinguished the basis for the money-laundering proceedings and the provisional attachment.

Analysis: The discharge order covered only some of the alleged lottery-related offences, while other charges, including conspiracy and cheating, continued to survive for trial. The Court treated the existence of scheduled-offence allegations after the relevant amendment, the continuing nature of the conspiracy allegation, and the disputed factual question regarding generation of proceeds of crime as sufficient to prevent the petitioner from treating the attachment and adjudication as void. The discharge did not erase the foundation for the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: The partial discharge did not invalidate the money-laundering proceedings or the provisional attachment, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected as the petitioner failed to dislodge the statutory basis for the proceedings and failed to establish any ground for writ interference.

Ratio Decidendi: When a special statute provides a complete remedial framework, and the challenge turns on disputed factual questions while some predicate allegations still survive for trial, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to short-circuit the statutory process.

---