Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15695 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11271 of 2024 Applicant :- Neeharika Singh Opposite Party :- Directorate Of Enforcement Govt. Of India Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh,Sandeep Kumar(Trivedi) Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rohit Tripathi,Kuldeep Srivastava Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged validity of summoning/ cognizance order dated 24.10.2024 in Session Case No. 2578/2024 in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption/PMLA, (CBI-West), Lucknow along with the prosecution complaint filed in ECIR/LKZO/12/2021 and all consequential proceedings in the aforesaid session case. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was made accused in 12 cases. In 11 cases the applicant's involvement could not be established during investigation and no charge sheet was submitted against her. However, in the 12th case, investigation is still going on. 4. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement has submitted that the investigation in one of the scheduled offences is still pending and the applicant's name has not been absolved in that case as yet. ECIR has been registered after registration of FIR in respect of a scheduled offence and, therefore, proceedings under PMLA has rightly been instituted against the applicant. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India: (2023) 12 SCC 1 and V. Vijay Sai Reddy v. Enforcement Directorate: 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1604. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence that can be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action against any person for money laundering on an assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum. For, the expression “derived or obtained” is indicative of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence already accomplished. Similarly, in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no action for money laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. This interpretation alone can be countenanced on the basis of the provisions of the 2002 Act, in particular Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any other view would be rewriting of these provisions and disregarding the express language of the definition clause “proceeds of crime”, as it obtains as of now." 6. A perusal of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicates that the essential requirement for institution of proceedings under PMLA is registration of an FIR/ complaint in respect of commission of a scheduled offence, which had been done in the present case. Proceedings under PMLA cannot be permitted to go on where the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved. 7. The applicant has not been finally absolved from the scheduled offence in the present case. 8. In V. Vijay Sai Reddy, a single judge Bench of Telangana High Court at Hyderabad held that "the action of confiscation can be resorted to in respect of property in the event of his acquittal or discharge in connection with the scheduled offence." 9. The applicant has neither been acquitted nor been discharged in the scheduled offence as yet. Therefore, no ground for quashing of the cognizance/ summoning order or the proceedings under PMLA is made out. 10. The application lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Pradeep/- Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench