1 CGHC010206952026 2026:CGHC:39366 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1487 of 2026 Hitesh Kumar Mandhu Alias Hitesh Natwarlal Madhu S/o Mr. Natawarlal Madhu Aged About 44 Years R/o 101/1, First Floor, Pradhu Villa Thobde Alle Nagar Vasant Vihar Solapur Maharashtra . ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through- The Secretary Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance Government Of India, Room No. 128-A North Block New Delhu 110001 2. Directorate Of Enforcement Goi. Through- The Director Parvartan Bhawan, Apj Abdul Kalam Road New Delhi 110001. 3. Directorate Of Enforcement Raipur Zonal Office Through- Asst, Director 2nd Floor Subhash Stadium Moti Bagh. Raipur Chhattisgarh. 492001. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.3. : Dr. Saurabha Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 08/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 assailing quashing of provisional attachment order No. 08 of 2026 in ECIR No. RPZO/20/2021 dated 30.09.2021 passed in exercise of power conferred under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.09.16 10:47:54 +0530 2 Act 2002 (herein after referred to the PMLA Act 2002) by provisionally attaching the property as detailed below:- Sr No. Description of Property Value of the attachment 1. Gatt No. 74, Area 0.83 Hector, Are, havar Gaon, Taluka Kalamb, Dhara Shiv Maharashtra Rs. 43,85,000/- in terms of value thereof. 2. Gatt No. 4/D, area 0.99 Hector, Are, Vita (khu), Taluka Sonpeth, Parbhani, Maharashtra Rs. 4, 45,000/- in terms of value thereof. 3. DMAT account having DP ID 12037600 with client ID 00479800 (in CDSL) in the name of Hitesh Kumar Madhu operated with Aditya Birla Money limited. Rs. 6,52,64,899.75 in terms of value thereof. 2. Section 8 of the PMLA, 2002 provides for Adjudication of complaint under sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications made under sub-section (4) of section 17 or under sub-section (10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed an offence under section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime, it may serve a notice of not less than thirty days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of section 5, or, seized 2 or frozen under section 17 or section 18, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money-laundering and confiscated by the Central Government. 3. The record of the case further demonstrate that in pursuance of power conferred upon the adjudicating authority, the authority has served the notice 3 on 08.04.2026 to the petitioner in-turn the petitioner has submitted the reply to the said notice on 15.05.2026 whereas before submission of reply they have filed this petition on 15.05.2026. But subsequently, the petitioners have filed reply before the adjudicating authority which is still pending for consideration. 4. As such, this petition has become infructuous as the petitioner has already taken the recourse available to him under the Act which is efficacious remedy as provided under the law, therefore, the petition is dismissed as infructuous. Accordingly the CRMP is disposed of as having become infructuous. It is made clear that this Court has not given any opinion on the merit of the submission made by any of the parties. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh