R KASANIYA BEGUM W/O C RABEEK RAJA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CHENNAI ZONAL OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the registering of complaint under Section 5(5) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as PMLA Act. The petitioners herein are one of the partners of M/s.R.R.Minerals at Aruppukottai, wherein, the respondents have found that there is prima facie case of money laundering in the affairs of the said partnership firm and therefore, summon was served to the petitioners under Section 50(2) and 50(3) of PML Act, calling upon them to answer the queries and pursuant to the said process, since a prima facie case of money laundering has been made out to the tune of Rs.5 Crores, a complaint has been registered and it is under investigation. By way of a writ petition, the said process is sought to be quashed and the reasons stated in the writ petition for seeking quashment of the complaint is that the respondent has no authority under PML Act to register a complaint and Section 3 of PML Act is not at all applicable to the petitioners. Since there is no material to show that the properties in their possession are proceeds of crime, when the petitioners have not been involved in any crime, the assets possessed by them cannot be termed as proceeds of crime or the petitioners are involved in money laundering. Therefore, the impugned order, in so far it relates to the petitioners, under Section 5(5) of PLM Act is not sustainable and liable to be quashed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. For convenience, provisions relevant to decide the petition is extracted below:-

(3.) Insofar as this case is concerned, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners under Section 50 and being satisfied that prima facie material against them and reason to believe that the petitioners are in possession of proceeds of crime, the complaint has been registered and it is under investigation besides adjudication for attachment.