PMLA summons cannot be quashed solely because the respondent was discharged in the predicate offence.

A summons issued in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could not be quashed merely because the respondent had been discharged in the predicate offence. The discharge did not, by itself, defeat the summons at that stage, and the question whether the respondent should be arrayed as an accused was left open for later consideration if such a stage arose. The quashing of the summons was therefore unsustainable, and proceedings pursuant to the summons were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether a summons issued in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can be quashed merely because the respondent has been discharged in the predicate offence.

Analysis: The respondent had been issued only a summons. The discharge in the predicate offence did not, by itself, justify quashing the summons at that stage. The question whether the respondent should be arrayed as an accused was left to be decided later, and all relevant contentions on that aspect were kept open for consideration if such a stage arose.

Conclusion: The quashing of the summons was held to be unsustainable, and the appellant was permitted to proceed in pursuance of the summons.

---