PMLA investigation and information-sharing powers upheld despite closure of some predicate FIRs and later FIR inclusion.

Money-laundering proceedings under the PMLA are anchored in the existence of proceeds of crime and may continue as a continuing offence even where some predicate FIRs have been quashed or closed; the inclusion of a subsequently registered FIR in an ongoing ECIR was held permissible absent any statutory bar, so quashing was refused. The Enforcement Directorate's power to summon, collect documents, gather evidence, issue a questionnaire, and share information under Section 66 was construed broadly as part of its investigative domain; because no arbitrariness or unlawfulness was shown, the challenge to those steps was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could be quashed on the ground that most predicate FIRs had been quashed or closed, and whether a subsequently registered FIR could be included in the existing ECIR; (ii) Whether the Enforcement Directorate exceeded its statutory powers by issuing a questionnaire to customers and by sharing information under Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could be quashed on the ground that most predicate FIRs had been quashed or closed, and whether a subsequently registered FIR could be included in the existing ECIR.

Analysis: The offence of money-laundering is anchored in the existence of proceeds of crime and is a continuing offence. The statutory scheme, particularly the definition of proceeds of crime, the breadth of the offence in Section 3, and Explanation II to Section 44(1), shows that the pendency of further material or later complaints does not by itself defeat the existing complaint or investigation. The Court also treated the inclusion of a subsequently registered FIR within the ongoing investigation as permissible in the absence of any express statutory prohibition. Accordingly, the fact that some predicate FIRs had been quashed or closed did not warrant termination of the proceedings where one predicate FIR still remained and further material had surfaced.

Conclusion: The plea for quashing on this ground was rejected and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Enforcement Directorate exceeded its statutory powers by issuing a questionnaire to customers and by sharing information under Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The statutory powers of investigation under the Act were read broadly, including the power to summon, collect documents, receive evidence, and gather material relevant to locating proceeds of crime. Section 66 was construed as enabling disclosure of information to the concerned agency when contravention of another law appears on the basis of information already in possession. The questionnaire was treated as a mode of collecting information during investigation, not as coercion to compel private complaints. The Court held that the manner of questioning and collection of information lies primarily within the investigative domain and is not ordinarily amenable to interference unless shown to be arbitrary or unlawful, which was not established.

Conclusion: The challenge to the questionnaire and the Section 66 communication was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to be without merit, and the statutory investigation and information-sharing steps taken by the enforcement agency were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, investigation may continue on the basis of existing and subsequently emerging material so long as the offence of money-laundering and proceeds of crime remain in issue, and the investigating authority may gather and share information within the statutory framework without such steps being struck down as ultra vires merely because they seek information from affected persons.

---