AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... forged certain documents, cheated the Central Bank of India (for short, "the Bank") and obtained a loan of Rs.1.71 Crores. According to the case, various documents were fabricated and falsely prepared by the petitioners. It was done with the conspiracy of the bank officials. An FIR was filed by the CBI on 23.07.2009, in which, after investigation, a charge-sheet has already been submitted. In the year 2022, a complaint under the Act has been filed against the petitioners and others which is basis of the case. In this complaint, on 30.03.2022 cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and others. These proceedings are questioned in this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that proceeding of the case cannot continue under law. It is argued that with regard to the loan, a claim was made by the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, "DRT"), which was allowed. But, during execution proceedings, the matter was settled and the due amount was paid by the petitioners to the Bank. 5. It is argued that long thereafter, the complaint has been filed under the Act. Le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onduct the inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code. On the question of jurisdiction learned State counsel referred to Section 44 of the Act to argue that, in fact, the complaint has been filed in the special court constituted for the area, in which, the offence has been committed. There is no error of jurisdiction. 10. It is argued that proceeds of crime has been taken and utilized. Hence, no interference is warranted. 11. It is a petition under Section 482 of the Code. The jurisdiction is too wide to ensure the ends of justice. It is guided by the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, (2006)6 SCC 736. In para 12 of it, the Hon'ble Court observed as hereunder:- "12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few-Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not." 12. Mainly, arguments have been raised on the ground of jurisdiction, non-maintainability for the reasons that a proceeding had already been taken place and that the loan had been returned. 13. Arguments have been advanced with regard to the non-compliance of Sections 200 and 202 of the Code. The provisions of Section 200 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to proceed straightway without conducting inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code. This proviso is as hereunder:- "200. Examination of complainant.-A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r individual accounts as a vehicle to launder proceeds of crime and integrate them so as to project the same as untainted property. These funds are nothing but proceeds of crime generated through criminal activity related to the scheduled offence. Further, by layering and integrating the POC through his personal account and account of M/s Golden Industry, Satish Kumar Gupta tried to hide the criminal originality of the POC and projected the said tainted money generated out of criminal activities as untainted. Thus, Satish Kumar Gupta is one of the main architects involved in cheating the Central Bank of India, Roorkee and hence he is directly or indirectly beneficiary of POC. He indulged or knowingly involved in process/activities of possession, acquisition; use/concealment of the POC hence appears to have committed offence of money laundering under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which is punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 11.3 Parminder Singh (Accused No.3) Parminder Singh is one of the partners of M/s Luxmi Auto Industries and is the main accused in this case. He had taken loan from Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,- (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:- (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever. 4. Punishment for money-laundering.-Whoever commits the offence of money-laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unished for the same offence more than once." 23. In the instant case, the FIR was filed for offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") and here, in the instant case, the complaint is filed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Both are distinct offences. The acts are also different. They are not the same offence. Therefore, apparently the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India are not attracted in the instant case. Instant complaint case is not a second trial. The petitioners have never been tried before. 24. In so far as Section 300 of the Code is concerned, it is also not applicable, it deals with the situation when the person once convicted or acquitted is tried for the same offence again. This Section bars such trial. Instant complaint case is not a second trial. The petitioners have never been tried out. 25. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act also makes provisions with regard to an act which falls as an offence under different statutes. This section reads as hereunder:- "26. Provision as to offences punishable under two or more enactments.-Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the ....