1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.18668 OF 2024 (GM - RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.17779 OF 2024 (GM - RES) WRIT PETITION No.22717 OF 2024 (GM - RES) WRIT PETITION No.22808 OF 2024 (GM - RES) WRIT PETITION No.23142 OF 2024 (GM - RES) WRIT PETITION No.23287 OF 2024 (GM - RES) WRIT PETITION No.23356 OF 2024 (GM - RES) IN WRIT PETITION No.18668 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . M/S. SREE RAGHAVENDRA ENTERPRISES NO.51, GOPAL SWAMY ROAD GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI – 583 103 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SMT. N.SUVARNA (REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM). 2 . SMT. N.SUVARNA W/O SRI N.SURYNARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT D.NO.21(2), 2ND CROSS XVIII WARD, NEHRU COLONY 2 GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI – 583 103. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGHARISH G. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 2ND FLOOR, VISTAAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 2-22/6, AIRPORT ROAD, YEYYADI MANGALORE – 575 008. 2 . JOINT DIRECTOR BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 3RD FLOOR, 'B'-BLOCK, BMTC SHANTINAGAR, TTMC K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027. 3 . DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT DELHI ZONAL OFFICE - I, C-BLOCK PRAVARTAN BHAWAN DR. APJ ABDUL KALAM ROAD NEW DELHI – 110 011. 4 . ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING 4TH FLOOR, SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI – 110 001 3 REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR. P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ECIR/MGSZO/01/2024 REGISTERED BY THE R-1 U/S 3 OF THE PMLA ACT, DTD. 06.02.2024 ANNX-K IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE PETITIONERS. IN WRIT PETITION No.17779 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . M/S. INDIAN MINERALS AND GRANITE CO., NO. 51, GOPAL SWAMY ROAD GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI – 583 103. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SMT. N.SURVARNA (REGISTERED UNDER REGISTRATION ACT) 2 . SMT. N.SUVARNA W/O SRI N.SURYNARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT D.NO. 21(2), 2ND CROSS, XVIII WARD NEHRU COLONY, GANDHINAGAR BALLARI – 583 103. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGHARISH G. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT 4 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 2ND FLOOR, VISTAAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 2-22/6, AIRPORT ROAD, YEYYADI MANGALORE – 575 008. 2 . JOINT DIRECTOR BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 3RD FLOOR, ‘B’ BLOCK, BMTC SHANTINAGAR, TTMC K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027. 3 . DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT DELHI ZONAL OFFICE - 1 C-BLOCK, PRAVARTAN BHAWAN DR. APJ ABDUL KALAM ROAD NEW DELHI – 110 011. 4 . ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING 4TH FLOOR, SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI – 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ECIR/MGSZO/01/2024 REGISTERED BY THE R-1 U/S 3 OF THE PMLA ACT, DTD. 06.02.2024 ANNX-K IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE PETITIONERS. 5 IN WRIT PETITION No.22717 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI NARA SHARATH REDDY S/O N.SURYANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.551, 16TH CROSS INDIRANAGAR, BENNAMANGALA II STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 038. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGHARISH G. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 2ND FLOOR, VISTAAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 2-22/6, AIRPORT ROAD, YEYYADI MANGALORE – 575 008. 2 . JOINT DIRECTOR BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 3RD FLOOR, B-BLOCK, BMTC SHANTINAGAR, TTMC, K.H.ROAD SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. 3 . DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT DELHI ZONAL OFFICE-1 C-BLOCK, PRAVARTAN BHAWAN 6 DR. APJ ABDUL KALAM ROAD NEW DELHI – 110 011. 4 . ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING 4TH FLOOR, SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI – 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ECIR/MGSZO/01/2024 REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT U/S. 3 OF THE PMLA ACT, DATED 06.02.2024 ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ORDER IN OA.NO.1152/2024 DATED 18.07.2024 ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY FOURTH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER SO FAR AS PETITIONER IN CONCERN. IN WRIT PETITION No.22808 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI N.SURYANARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE GOWRANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT D.NO.21(2), 2ND CROSS XVIII WARD, NEHRU COLONY GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI – 583 103. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGHARISH G. S., ADVOCATE) 7 AND: 1 . DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 2ND FLOOR, VISTAAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 2-22/6, AIRPORT ROAD, YEYYADI MANGALORE – 575 008. 2 . JOINT DIRECTOR BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 3RD FLOOR, B-BLOCK, BMTC SHANTINAGAR, TTMC, K.H.ROAD SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. 3 . DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT DELHI ZONAL OFFICE – I, C-BLOCK PRAVARTAN BHAWAN DR. APJ ABDUL KALAM ROAD NEW DELHI – 110 011. 4 . ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING 4TH FLOOR, SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI – 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF 8 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ECIR/MGSZO/01/2024 REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT U/S 3 OF THE PMLA ACT, DATED 06/02/2024 ANNX-K AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ORDER IN OA NO. 1152/2024 DATED 18/07/2024 ANNX-M PASSED BY FOURTH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.23142 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI C.ANIL KUMAR REDDY S/O C.GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT D.NO. 147, 3RD CROSS XVIII WARD, NEHRU COLONY GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI – 583 103. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGHARISH G. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 2ND FLOOR, VISTAAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 2-22/6, AIRPORT ROAD, YEYYADI MANGALORE – 575 008. 2 . JOINT DIRECTOR BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 3RD FLOOR, B-BLOCK, BMTC SHANTINAGAR, TTMC 9 K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027. 3 . DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT DELHI ZONAL OFFICE - I C-BLOCK, PRAVARTAN BHAWAN DR. APJ ABDUL KALAM ROAD NEW DELHI – 110 011. 4 . ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ECIR/MGSZO/01/24 REGISTERED BY THE R1 U/S 3 OF THE PMLA ACT, DTD 06.02.24 ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEUQENTLY QUASH ORDER IN OA NO. 1152/24 DTD 18.07.24 ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY FOURTH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED. IN WRIT PETITION No.23287 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI NARA BHARATH REDDY S/O N.SURYANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT D.NO. 21(2), 2ND CROSS XVIII WARD, NEHRU COLONY GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI – 583 103. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR 10 SRI NAGHARISH G. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 2ND FLOOR, VISTAAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 2-22/6, AIRPORT ROAD, YEYYADI MANGALORE – 575 008. 2 . JOINT DIRECTOR BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 3RD FLOOR, B-BLOCK, BMTC SHANTHINAGAR, TTMC K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027. 3 . DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT DELHI ZONAL OFFICE - I C-BLOCK, PRAVARTAN BHAWAN DR. APJ ABDUL KALAM ROAD NEW DELHI – 110 011. 4 . ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) 11 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ECIR/MGSZO/01/24 REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT U/S 3 OF THE PMLA ACT, 06.02.2024 ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ORDER OA.NO.1152/2024 DATED 18.07.2024 ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY FOURTH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.23356 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI SRINIVASULU T.H.R. ALIAS SEENA BABU S/O T.H.RAMANJANEYALU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT SIRUGUPPA ROAD OPP. REMAND HOME HOUSING BOARD COLONY BELLARY – 583 101. 2 . SRI SULTHAN BABU S/O LATE T.RAJASAHEB AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.187, SANJAY GANDHI NAGAR BELLARY – 583 101. 3 . SRI K.MANJUNATHA S/O K.HONNURAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT MIG -1/61 NEAR VASAVI SCHOOL NETHAJI NAGAR BELLARY – 583 101. 4 . SRI N.P.SATHISH REDDY S/O LATE N.P.SHIVARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 12 R/AT NO.22, MRV LAYOUT MOKA ROAD, BELLARY – 583 103. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGHARISH G. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 2ND FLOOR, VISTAAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 2-22/6, AIRPORT ROAD, YEYYADI MANGALORE – 575 008. 2 . JOINT DIRECTOR BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE 3RD FLOOR, B-BLOCK, BMTC SHANTINAGAR TTMC K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027. 3 . DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT DELHI ZONAL OFFICE - I C-BLOCK, PRAVARTAN BHAWAN DR. APJ ABDUL KALAM RAOD NEW DELHI – 110 011. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) 13 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ECIR/MGSZO/01/2024 REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT U/S. 3 OF THE PMLA ACT, DATED 06.02.2024 ANNEXURE-B IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners, in these cases, raise a common challenge to the proceedings instituted by the Enforcement Directorate in ECIR/MGSZO/01/2024 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘the Act’ for short). A consequent mandamus is sought to declare that the proceeds of crime traceable to original complaints in P.C.R. Nos.73, 74, 75 & 76 of 2022 cannot be gone into, in the light of quashment of crime itself by this Court. 2. Heard Sri M.V. Sheshachala, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 14 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The proceedings impugned in the case at hand are an offshoot of registration of private complaints in P.C.R. Nos.73, 74, 75 & 76 of 2022 and several other private complaints registered. The aforesaid private complaints along with several other complaints against these petitioners become the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Criminal Petition Nos. 8067, 8072, 8075, 8076, 8079, 8068, 8070, 8074, 8077 and 8078 of 2023. The Enforcement Directorate is nowhere in the picture till this point. This Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., obliterates the very reference order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., Therefore, it would suffice if the facts obtaining in Crl.P.No.8076 of 2023 are paraphrased to capture the facts necessary for consideration of the subject cases. The facts are as follows: “…. …. …. The 1st respondent is the complainant. The complainant claims to have purchased land bearing Sy.No.35/A totally measuring 10 acres in Gavarala Village, Kukunoor Taluk, Koppal District including 2 guntas of kharab land. The complainant purchases the said property on 23-12- 2002. The averment is that he has purchased the said land from out of his own earnings and claims to be in possession 15 of the said land of 10 acres in total since then. It is alleged that accused 3 to 6 are the relatives of the complainant and accused 5 and 6, are husband and wife and accused No.4 is the son of accused 5 and 6. Accused 5 and 6 are said to be partners of M/s Sree Raghavendra Enterprises and M/s Indian Minerals and Granite Company and accused Nos. 1 and 2 are said to be employees in the said partnership firm. 3. The complainant avers that he stayed in the residence of the accused while he was pursuing his Engineering degree in the years 1993 to 1997. Subsequent upon completion of graduation, the complainant shifts to United States of America to pursue his further studies. On coming back to India, the complainant is said to have assisted the management and administrative work of the business affairs of both the afore-mentioned partnership firms from 2002 to 2006. The narration is taken a little further and the narration turns into allegations. The complainant is said to have asked accused No.5 to return the documents concerning the schedule property on the decision of the complainant to quit of assisting and serving accused No.5 in the partnership firms. It is then accused No.5 misrepresents and lies about the sale deed dated 23-12-2002 and other property papers missing and assured the complainant that if the documents were traced, he would return the same to the complainant immediately. This is in the year 2005-2006. 4. In the year 2019, the firms and the houses of accused Nos. 4 to 6 were searched by the Income Tax officials and search led to seizure. The seizure was of several documents in possession of accused Nos. 4 to 6. The property papers which belonged to the complainant also became a subject matter of seizure. It is then a notice comes to be issued by the Income Tax Department to the complainant and he was summoned with regard to the affairs and business of the aforesaid partnership firms. It is then the complaint avers that the complainant realized that accused 4 to 6 along with others have played fraud upon the complainant. The fraud is that accused 4 to 6 have usurped the self-acquired properties of one N.Deva Reddy. The said N.Deva Reddy is the father-in-law of the complainant. It is then the subject complaint comes to be registered on the 16 score that a General Power of Attorney (‘GPA’ for short) that was executed in the year 2012 is a product of fraud and based upon the said General Power of Attorney, properties have changed hands by forging the signatures of the complainant. Based upon these incidents, the private complaint comes to be registered. The learned Magistrate, on perusal at the private complaint, refers the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Referring the matter to investigation is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. Since the 1st petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, the matter is placed before this Special Bench constituted to hear cases concerning political representatives. …. …. …. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The 1st respondent-complainant is said to be one of the relatives of accused Nos. 4 to 6, the petitioners herein. He was working in the partnership firms of accused 4 and 5 between 2002 and 2006. It is his claim that he had purchased the subject property in Sy.No.35/3 on 23-12-2002 and travels to United States of America for his higher studies; comes back, executes a GPA in favour of accused No.1. Accused No.1 on the strength of the GPA executes a sale deed in favour of accused No.4 on 06.08.2012 after execution of the GPA. 9 years have passed by. A complaint is sought to be registered before the jurisdictional Police on 12-08-2021 contending that the GPA that he is said to have executed on 04-08-2012 is said to be forged and sought investigation at the hands of the Police. Preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Police in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF U.P.– (2014) 2 SCC 1. The result of the preliminary inquiry was closure of the complaint in terms of the endorsement dated 25-10-2021 holding that the issue is purely civil in nature. 10. After about 4 months, a private complaint comes to be registered on 24-02-2022, on the very same ground that signatures of the complainant on the GPA were forged inter alia. Certain paragraphs of the complaint become germane to be noticed and they read as follows: 17 “7. Recently after the Complainant realized the fraud played by Accused persons and seeing few documents at the office of the Income Tax Dept., Ballari which showed further transactions with regard to the Schedule Property, Complainant procured RTCs for Schedule Property and after enquiring at the office of Sub- Registrar. Yelburga, Complainant discovered that vide Sale Deed dated 06.08.2012, Accused No. 1 has sold the Schedule Property to Accused No. 4. The Accused No. 4 to 6 conspired to usurp the Schedule Property owned by Complainant and by forging his signature on the GPA, they have created a GPA dated 04-08-2012 appointing Accused No. 1 as the alleged Lawful Attorney of Complainant. Accused No. 1 being fully aware of the fact that the said GPA dated 04.08.2012 was not executed and signed by the Complainant, has accepted the authority or power allegedly vested on him by virtue of the said forged and concocted GPA and has executed a Sale Deed in favour of Accused No. 4. Accused No. 2 and 3 being fully aware that the said GPA dated 04.08.2012 is a forged and concocted document created by Accused No. 1, 4 to 6 and other family members or employees of Accused No. 5 and that Complainant had never authorized the Accused No. 1 to deal with the Schedule Property, placed their signatures as Attesting witnesses. Neither have Accused No. 2 and 3 placed their signatures in the presence of Complainant nor has the Complainant placed his signature in the presence of Accused No. 1 to 3. Complainant had never executed the said the said GPA. Accused No. 2 and 3 have abetted the offences committed by Accused No. 1 and 4 to 6, they were present while Accused No. 1, 4 to 6 committed the offence of forgery. Certified copy of the GPA dated 04.08.2021 obtained from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yelburga under Right to Information Act is produced herewith as Document No. 8. 8. Subsequently based on the power vested on Accused No. 1 under GPA dated 04.08.2012 concocted and forged by Accused No. 4 to 6, Accused No. 1 has executed a sale deed dated 06-08-2012 (registered as Document No. YBG-1-02445-2012-13, Book 1, stored in CD No. YBGD63, in the office of Sub-Registrar, Yelburga) in favour of Accused No. 4 who is the son of Accused No. 5. It is pertinent to note here that both the GPA and sale deed has been 18 created fraudulently to usurp the lands belonging to Complainant. A copy of the Sale Deed dated 06.08.2012 is produced as Document No. 9. Accused No. 7 and 8 Have acted as the witnesses to the alleged sale deed Dated 06.08.2012 in favour of Accused No.4. Accused No. 7 and 8 being fully aware that Accused No. 1 is not a lawfully appointed attorney or Agent of the Complainant and that Accused No. 1 to 6 have connived and conspired to usurp the Schedule Property belonging to Complainant and accordingly have forged and concocted a GPA dated 04.08.2012 have placed their signatures as attesting witnesses to the Sale Deed dated 06.08.2012. It is submitted that the alleged GPA has been executed on 04-08-2012 and the alleged sale deed executed by Accused No.1 in favour of Accused No.4 on 06-8-2012 within a span of two days which itself shows that the fraudulent set of the above said Accused persons in committing the above said offence. 9. It is pertinent to submit that all the above said misdeeds have been committed at the instance of Accused No. 4 to 6 and all the accused have conspired for commission of the offences, and all are equally responsible for the offence committed by them. It is submitted that the Accused No.1 to 8 all have put together their bands in commission of the offence. 10. It is submitted that the Accused No. 5 N. Suryanarayana Reddy has conspired with all the accused persons, in order to cheat, dishonestly and fraudulently usurp and grab the Properties belonging to Complainant by forging and fabricating various documents mentioned above but not limited to the same and has caused wrongful loss Accused No. 5 in connivance with Accused No. 1 to 4, 6 and other members of his family, friends and employees by adopting a similar modus operandi has forged and concocted another GPA dated 29.03-2006, wherein Accused No. 2 who is an Employee of Accused No. 5 and 6 was allegedly appointed as Attorney of Complainant in the said GPA dated 29.03.2006. Accused No. 5 by virtue of immense money and political power he wields has persuaded all other Accused persons into supporting his illegal mis doings and has instigated them into committing such illegals acts which are punishable under the Indian Penal Code. 19 11. It is submitted that the Complainant herein had filed a complaint before the S.H.O Gandhinagar police station Ballari on 15/07/2021, however the S.H.O, Gandhinagar Police Station did not conduct any preliminary enquiry or register a case against the Accused persons though the accused persons have committed the above said offences and such being the fact the S.H.O Gandhinagar police station has issued an endorsement stating that the complaint is civil in nature. Hence the SHO, Gandhinagar P.S. has refused to take cognizance of offences mentioned in the complaint A notarised copy of the Complaint and Acknowledgement dated 15.07.2021 and endorsement/ NCR dated 17.07.2021 issued by SHO, Gandhinagar Police Station is produced herewith as Document No. 10, 11 and 12. Thereafter the complainant has approached the Superintendent of Police, Ballari as contemplated U/s 154(3) of Cr.P.C on 12.08.2021 and the said complaint was referred to Gandhinagar Police Station for further action and again an endorsement to that effect in similar fashion that the matter or the allegations made are civil in nature has been issued. A copy of the said Complaint addressed to the S.P., Ballari dated 12.08.2021 and endorsement issued by Gandhinagar Police Station dated 25.10.2021 are produced herewith as Document No. 13 and 14. The Police authorities have acted hand in glove to shield the Accused Persons and have assisted the Accused persons in achieving and accomplishing their ill-motives. The Police authorities have shirked from their duty and responsibility to act upon the complainant lodged by Complaint within the framework of law. Having no other means and aggrieved by the same, the complainant is approaching this Hon'ble Court through this Private complaint with the following prayer. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to refer the above case for investigation under section 156(3) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences committed by the Accused No. 1 to 8 under Section 420, 465, 468, 471, 406, read with section 120-B, 114, 182. 191 and 192 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 before Jurisdictional Gandhinagar Police Station, Ballari in the interest of justice.” (Emphasis added) The averments in the complaint are all that have happened in the year 2012. The forgery the complainant alleges is of the year 2012. The narration in the complaint is that the 20 complainant is the owner of the property in Sy.No.37/1 and the sale on the strength of the aforesaid forgery is in respect of Sy.No.35/3. A search conducted by the Income Tax department in the year 2020, in the house of other accused is projected to be the cause of action for calling in question the sale deed dated 06-08-2012. The learned Magistrate, on the strength of the averments made in the complaint, refers the matter for investigation. The order of reference reads as follows: “Heard learned counsel for complainant. Complaint is filed alleging that accused No.1 to 8 have committed a offence punishable under Section 420, 465, 468, 471, 406 R/w Section 120(B), 114, 182, 191, 192 of IPC in respect of the property belongs to the complainant. The complaint further discloses that, the complainant has exhausted the Section 154 of Cr.P.C. by giving complaint to the concerned Jurisdictional police and approaching the higher authority of police to investigate the case. But, the concerned police failed to investigate the case. Hence, the complainant sought for refer the case to the jurisdiction police to investigate the offence committed by the accused. The offence alleged to be committed by the accused is forgery, cheating and the like. The said allegation required to be throughly investigated by obtaining the necessary records and the complainant having been approached before the jurisdictional police and higher authority of police but the jurisdictional police declined to investigate the case. Therefore, it is just and proper to refer the present case for investigation. In view of the same court pass following: ORDER By acting under Sectin 156(3) of Cr.P.C. the present case is referred to jurisdictional police i.e., Gandhi Nagar Police Station to investigate the case and to submit final report. Call on 28.05.2021. Sd/- Prl.C.J & JMFC, Ballari.” (Emphasis added) 21 All that the learned Magistrate records is that the offence alleged is forgery, cheating and the like and further records that the said allegation is required to be thoroughly investigated and, therefore, the matter is referred for investigation to the jurisdictional Police. The learned Magistrate ought to have at least seen the dates that are alleged in the complaint. The dates stop at the year 2012. The complaint is registered in the year 2022 clearly 10 years after the alleged incident. 11. Several documents are appended to the petition. The learned senior counsel takes this Court through those documents to demonstrate that the GPA that is executed in the year 2012 i.e., on 04-08-2012 bears the signature of the executant. The executant is the complainant. He would take this Court through the affidavit filed along with the private complaint. The signature in the affidavit is that of the complainant. Even to bare eye, the signature completely tallies, with the signature in the GPA. I have taken note of all those averments and the documents only for the reason that the complainant feigns ignorance and projects, forgery of the GPA executed in the year 2012. On these facts, after about 10 years in a matter which is seemingly civil in nature, the complainant seeks to project forgery and create a cause of action in his favour for registration of the complaint and registers the complaint. The complaint is referred for investigation. 12. The ignorance of the complainant is belied by the properties owned by the complainant himself, as is depicted in the chart provided by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. It would read as follows: “3.3. Thirdly, if all the title deeds of the complainant have been retained by Sri. Suryanarayana Reddy the complainant is the owner of other properties over which there is no such allegations of retention of title deeds. These properties owned by the complainant are:- Sl. No Date Particulars Total measurement 1 04.06.2001 Property bearing Sy.No.374B, situated 2.70 acres 22 at Hosahalli Village, Siraguppa Taluk, Ballari 2 04.06.2001 Property bearing Sy.No.376A/2A1, situated at Hosahalli Village, Siraguppa Taluk, Ballari 10.53 acres 3 16.03.2002 Property bearing Sy.No.37/1, situated at Gavaral Village, Kukanur Taluk, Ballari 5.15 guntas 4 F.Y.1995-96 Property bearing Sy.No.43(P), situated at Kanekoppa Village, Molakalmur Taluk, Chitradurga District About 18 acres 5 11.03.2003 Property bearing Sy.No.26/B, situated at Putthageri Village, koppal District 2.24 guntas” The learned counsel for the 1ST respondent would admit the said chart. Sy No.37/1 measuring 5 acres 15 guntas is still owned by the complainant. It is admitted that Sy.No.35/3 which is the subject matter of crime is adjacent to Sy.No.37/1. Therefore, knowing full well and having executed the GPA, the allegation of forgery is now projected against the petitioner without any explanation for the delay of 10 years. Personal grievances are projected to be a crime. …. …. …. 15. Above all, the complaint is filed after 10 years after execution of the document. What is projected in the complaint is an incident which has happened on 06-08-2012. The complaint is admittedly registered on 28-02-2022. There is no explanation worth the name for the delay except projection of a search in the firms by the Income Tax Department, which is on the face of it, is unbelievable and improbable, as the details of search of a firm will never be divulged to a stranger. The stranger, I mean, the complainant who is nobody to the search and the documents seized in the search will not be divulged as it would amount 23 to an offence under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the complaint is undoubtedly hit by gross delay. ….. …. …. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CHANCHALPATI DAS, the complaint ought to have been shown the doors by the learned Magistrate himself under Section 203 of the CrPC, without referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The learned Magistrate performs judicial function. Order of reference is a judicial order. The least that the Magistrate should undertake is a cursory perusal at the complaint, so that it demonstrates some semblance of application of mind. Bald and laconic order of reference by the learned Magistrate in each and every complaint preferred before it would undoubtedly lead to docket explosion and clogging either the criminal Court or this Court in petitions filed there and here. 17. The learned Magistrate, therefore needs to filter frivolous complaints, and such filtering would require a little scrutiny of the contents of the complaint, though not elaborate consideration, a consideration that would demonstrate some application of mind. Therefore, in the light of the subject complaint shrouded with improbability, delay and intentions suffering from want of bonafides, even if the contents of the complaint are construed to be true, they would not become the ingredients of the crime. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts and the preceding analysis, so also the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments, if further proceedings/investigation is permitted to continue, would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of the law, degenerate into harassment and result in patent injustice. Therefore, I find this case to be one such which would require obliteration of the crime in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC 24 as elucidated by the Apex Court in the case of MAHMOOD ALI (supra). 18. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) Criminal Petition is allowed and the private complaint in P.C.R.No.74 of 2022 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari stands obliterated qua the petitioners. (ii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of the CrPC and the same would not bind any other proceedings pending between the parties.” (Emphasis supplied) Identical orders are passed in all the cases obliterating the very registration of PCRs and reference under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. All the orders passed by this Court, one of which is quoted supra, are challenged before the Apex Court in S.L.P. (Criminal) Diary No.563 of 2024. The Apex Court on 19-07-2024 rejects the S.L.P. by the following order: “UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following: O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 25 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. Siddhartha Dave for the petitioner(s). 3. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the High Court. 4. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. 5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand dispose of.” (Emphasis supplied) Between the dates i.e., the order passed by this Court quashing the proceedings against all these petitioners and turning down of the S.L.P. i.e., from 06-10-2023 to 19-07-2024 the Enforcement Directorate had sprung into action, as Enforcement Case Information Report (‘ECIR’) was registered on 6-02-2024. The issue now would be, whether ECIR should be permitted to be continued, in the light of obliteration of predicate offences and the S.L.P. against the said obliteration being turned down. 4. The learned senior counsel Sri M.V. Sheshachala appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Enforcement Directorate has no independent locus to act. It can spring into action only after registration of a predicate offence. As on today, 26 the predicate offence was not even investigated into. It was quashed by this Court at the stage of reference. The quashment was challenged by the complainants therein before the Apex Court. That comes to be rejected. Therefore, there is no predicate offence today in the case at hand. The learned senior counsel would submit that the entire issue is now covered by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA1. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Madhukar Deshpande appearing for the Enforcement Directorate would vehemently contend that money has been laundered in the case at hand. Even the decision in the case of VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY would not absolve the issue of money laundering. It may be a fact that predicate offence is quashed. He would submit that registration of FIR is not even necessary for exercising power of attachment of properties under the Act. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of SHIV CHARAN v. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY – Writ Petition (L) 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 27 No.9943 of 2023 and connected case decided on 01-03-2024. He would further contend that the Adjudicating Authority in O.A.No.1152 of 2024 has confirmed the attachment orders passed by the Enforcement Directorate, against which the petitioners have a remedy to file an appeal before the Tribunal constituted under the Act. In all he would submit that the petitions be dismissed and the proceedings of attachment be permitted to be continued in the ECIR. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The genesis of the problem is registration of private complaints and reference being made by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. At that stage writ petitions had been preferred. Owing to the law declared by the Apex Court, those proceedings were obliterated. Against obliteration the complainants therein had preferred S.L.P. which also comes to be rejected by the Apex Court. Today, there is no predicate offence. The Enforcement Directorate 28 has registered ECIR on 06-02-2024 after quashment of crime itself. Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate had registered the crime without there being any predicate offence. Whether it could be done or otherwise need not detain this court for long or delve deep into the matter. A three judge Bench of the Apex Court in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY has considered this issue in elaboration and has drawn up certain conclusions at paragraphs 467. They read as follows: “….. …. …. CONCLUSION 467. In light of the above analysis, we now proceed to summarise our conclusion on seminal points in issue in the following terms: - (i) The question as to whether some of the amendments to the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 could not have been enacted by the Parliament by way of a Finance Act has not been examined in this judgment. The same is left open for being examined along with or after the decision of the Larger Bench (seven Judges) of this Court in the case of Rojer Mathew. (ii) The expression “proceedings” occurring in Clause (na) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act is contextual and is required to be given expansive meaning to include inquiry procedure followed by the Authorities of ED, the Adjudicating Authority, and the Special Court. (iii) The expression “investigation” in Clause (na) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act does not limit itself to the matter of investigation concerning the offence under the Act 29 and is interchangeable with the function of “inquiry” to be undertaken by the Authorities under the Act. (iv) The Explanation inserted to Clause (u) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act does not travel beyond the main provision predicating tracking and reaching upto the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. (v)(a) Section 3 of the 2002 Act has a wider reach and captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy. The Explanation inserted to Section 3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of Section 3 but is only clarificatory in nature. It clarifies the word “and” preceding the expression projecting or claiming as “or”; and being a clarificatory amendment, it would make no difference even if it is introduced by way of Finance Act or otherwise. (b) Independent of the above, we are clearly of the view that the expression “and” occurring in Section 3 has to be construed as “or”, to give full play to the said provision so as to include “every” process or activity indulged into by anyone. Projecting or claiming the property as untainted property would constitute an offence of money-laundering on its own, being an independent process or activity. (c) The interpretation suggested by the petitioners, that only upon projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property that the offence of Section 3 would be complete, stands rejected. (d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the 30 jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money-laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him. (vi) Section 5 of the 2002 Act is constitutionally valid. It provides for a balancing arrangement to secure the interests of the person as also ensures that the proceeds of crime remain available to be dealt with in the manner provided by the 2002 Act. The procedural safeguards as delineated by us hereinabove are effective measures to protect the interests of person concerned. (vii) The challenge to the validity of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the 2002 Act is also rejected subject to Section 8 being invoked and operated in accordance with the meaning assigned to it hereinabove. (viii) The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 17 of the 2002 Act stands rejected. There are stringent safeguards provided in Section 17 and Rules framed thereunder. Moreover, the pre-condition in the proviso to Rule 3(2) of the 2005 Rules cannot be read into Section 17 after its amendment. The Central Government may take necessary corrective steps to obviate confusion caused in that regard. (ix) The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 18 of the 2002 Act also stands rejected. There are similar safeguards provided in Section 18. We hold that the amended provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. (x) The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the 2002 Act is also rejected. There are stringent safeguards provided in Section 19. The provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. 31 (xi) Section 24 of the 2002 Act has reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. (xii)(a) The proviso in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the 2002 Act is to be regarded as directory in nature and this provision is also read down to mean that the Special Court may exercise judicial discretion on case-to- case basis. (b) We do not find merit in the challenge to Section 44 being arbitrary or unconstitutional. However, the eventualities referred to in this section shall be dealt with by the Court concerned and by the Authority concerned in accordance with the interpretation given in this judgment. (xiii) (a) The reasons which weighed with this Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah706 for declaring the twin conditions in Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act, as it stood at the relevant time, as unconstitutional in no way obliterated the provision from the statute book; and it was open to the Parliament to cure the defect noted by this Court so as to revive the same provision in the existing form. (b) We are unable to agree with the observations in Nikesh Tarachand Shah707 distinguishing the enunciation of the Constitution Bench decision in Kartar Singh708; and other observations suggestive of doubting the perception of Parliament in regard to the seriousness of the offence of money-laundering, including about it posing serious threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the country. (c) The provision in the form of Section 45 of the 2002 Act, as applicable post amendment of 2018, is reasonable and has direct nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. (d) As regards the prayer for grant of bail, irrespective of the nature of proceedings, including those under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or even upon invoking 32 the jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 may apply. (xiv) The beneficial provision of Section 436A of the 1973 Code could be invoked by the accused arrested for offence punishable under the 2002 Act. (xv) (a) The process envisaged by Section 50 of the 2002 Act is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not “investigation” in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution; and the Authorities under the 2002 Act (referred to in Section 48), are not police officers as such. (b) The statements recorded by the Authorities under the 2002 Act are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (xvi) Section 63 of the 2002 Act providing for punishment regarding false information or failure to give information does not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness. (xvii) The inclusion or exclusion of any particular offence in the Schedule to the 2002 Act is a matter of legislative policy; and the nature or class of any predicate offence has no bearing on the validity of the Schedule or any prescription thereunder. (xviii) (a) In view of special mechanism envisaged by the 2002 Act, ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR under the 1973 Code. ECIR is an internal document of the ED and the fact that FIR in respect of scheduled offence has not been recorded does not come in the way of the Authorities referred to in Section 48 to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating “civil action” of “provisional attachment” of property being proceeds of crime. (b) Supply of a copy of ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory, it is enough if ED at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest. (c) However, when the arrested person is produced before the Special Court, it is open to the Special Court to 33 look into the relevant records presented by the authorised representative of ED for answering the issue of need for his/her continued detention in connection with the offence of money-laundering. (xix) Even when ED manual is not to be published being an internal departmental document issued for the guidance of the Authorities (ED officials), the department ought to explore the desirability of placing information on its website which may broadly outline the scope of the authority of the functionaries under the Act and measures to be adopted by them as also the options/remedies available to the person concerned before the Authority and before the Special Court. (xx) The petitioners are justified in expressing serious concern bordering on causing injustice owing to the vacancies in the Appellate Tribunal. We deem it necessary to impress upon the executive to take corrective measures in this regard expeditiously. (xxi) The argument about proportionality of punishment with reference to the nature of scheduled offence is wholly unfounded and stands rejected.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that the offence under Section 3 of the Act is dependent on illegal gain of property, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence and if a person is finally discharged or acquitted of the scheduled offence or quashed by the competent Court, there can be no offence of money laundering against any one 34 claiming such property, being the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. 8. After quashment of the proceedings by this Court, there begins the impugned proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate. As observed hereinabove, by then the scheduled offence/predicate offence had been obliterated. In the light of obliteration, the impugned proceedings cannot be permitted to be continued. The assessment of proceedings of crime in the ECIR reads as follows: “…. …. …. 7. Material relating to commission of offence: FIR No.0024 of 2023 dated 15/03/2023 registered at Gandhinagar Police Station, Ballari, Ballari District. Assessment of proceeds of crime: • As per the FIR No.0024 of 2023 dated 15/03/2023 registered at Gandhipuram Police Station, Ballari, it was mentioned that the accused, Sh. Nara Suryanarayana Reddy, who is the Managing Partner in M/s. Sree Raghavendra Enterprises (SRE group) and M/s. Indian Minerals and Granite Company (IMGC) and his two sons namely, Sh. Nara Bharath Reddy and Sh. Nara Sharath Reddy along with other accused persons have created fake GPAs and registered business properties of partners in their names. Further, Sh. Nara Bharath Reddy’s aides like his P.S. Sh. Ratna Babu, Sh. Seena Babu, Sh. Satish 35 Reddy, have given death threats to the complainants regarding property dispute. • The offences under Sections 389, 506, 34 & 120B of IPC 1860 invoked in the FIR No.0024 of 2023 dated 15/03/2023 registered at Gandhinagar PS, Ballari are scheduled offences under Section 2(1)(x) and 2(1)(y) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.” (Emphasis added) The proceeds of crime are directly linked to the crime so registered pursuant to the reference order. What is appended to the ECIR is documents of search and seizure. In the light of ECIR proceedings itself basing its foundation to the predicate offence/scheduled offences, all offences under Sections 406 and 420 inter alia and those proceedings having been quashed, the Enforcement Directorate cannot now independently, in the peculiar facts of these cases, initiate the impugned proceedings. All the judgments that the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate would seek to place reliance upon would not become applicable, as the predicate offence is no longer in subsistence. When the foundation is no longer in existence, the superstructure cannot be permitted to be in subsistence. 36 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petitions are allowed. (ii) ECIR/MGSZO/01/2024 dated 06-02-2024 registered by the 1st respondent stands quashed qua the petitioners in all the petitions. Pending applications if any, also stand disposed. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:SS