YASH TUTEJA & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

YASH TUTEJA & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Because the complaint alleged conspiracy only in respect of offences that are not scheduled offences (except s.120B IPC) and did not allege conspiracy to commit any offence included in the Schedule to the PMLA, the offences in the complaint are not scheduled offences within clause (y) of s.2(1) of the PMLA;...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: Yash Tuteja; Petitioner (second Petitioner in Wp(crl) No.208/2023): Anwar Dhebar; Petitioner (petitioner in Wp(crl) No.216/2023): Arun Pati Tripathi; Respondent: Union of India & Ors.; Authority/respondent (complainant): Directorate of Enforcement
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) / Final Hearing (petition Under Article 32 Challenging Complaint Under Section 44(1)(b) of the Pmla)
Outcome
Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos.153/2023 and 217/2023 disposed of; Writ Petition (Crl.) No.208/2023 partly allowed; Writ Petition (Crl.) No.216/2023 allowed; the complaint based on ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 quashed as to the second petitioner in WP(Crl) No.208/2023 (Anwar Dhebar) and as to the petitioner in WP(Crl) No.216/2023...
Legal Topics
Scheduled Offence, Proceeds of Crime, Complaint Under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA, Cognizance by Special Court, Application of Sections 200 204 Cr.p.c. to Special Court Proceedings
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Income Tax Act, 1961 Scheduled Offence Proceeds of Crime Complaint Under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA Cognizance by Special Court +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yash Tuteja

Petitioner

Anwar Dhebar

Petitioner (second Petitioner in Wp(crl) No.208/2023)

Arun Pati Tripathi

Petitioner (petitioner in Wp(crl) No.216/2023)

Union of India & Ors.

Respondent

Directorate of Enforcement

Authority/respondent (complainant)

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) / Final Hearing (petition Under Article 32 Challenging Complaint Under Section 44(1)(b) of the Pmla)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether offences alleged in the complaint (except s.120B IPC) are scheduled offences within clause (y) of s.2(1) of the PMLA
  2. 2 Whether an offence under Section 120B IPC becomes a scheduled offence for PMLA purposes when conspiracy alleged is not to commit an offence included in the Schedule to the PMLA
  3. 3 Whether proceeds of crime exist if no scheduled offence is made out

Ratio Decidendi

Because the complaint alleged conspiracy only in respect of offences that are not scheduled offences (except s.120B IPC) and did not allege conspiracy to commit any offence included in the Schedule to the PMLA, the offences in the complaint are not scheduled offences within clause (y) of s.2(1) of the PMLA; consequently there are no proceeds of crime and no offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is made out, and the complaint based on ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 is quashed as to the identified petitioners.

Court Disposition

Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos.153/2023 and 217/2023 disposed of; Writ Petition (Crl.) No.208/2023 partly allowed; Writ Petition (Crl.) No.216/2023 allowed; the complaint based on ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 quashed as to the second petitioner in WP(Crl) No.208/2023 (Anwar Dhebar) and as to the petitioner in WP(Crl) No.216/2023...

Orders

  • Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos.153/2023 and 217/2023 are disposed of.
  • The complaint based on ECIR/RPZO/11/2022, as far as the second petitioner (Anwar Dhebar) in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.208/2023 is concerned, is hereby quashed; Writ Petition No.208/2023 is partly allowed.