ORDER : P.N. Prakash, J. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the complaint in C.C.No.9 of 2018 filed before the Principal District Court (Special Court constituted under Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002), Madurai, now pending on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and the consequential summon dated 21.12.2018 issued by the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and quash the same so far as the petitioner/4th accused is concerned. 2. The police registered a case in Crime No.183 of 2012 against R.R. Granites and its partners for the offences under Sections 447, 379, 109, 120(b), 201, 406 and 420 IPC r/w Sections 3(1) and 4 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 and Sections 4(1), 4(2)(A), 4(3) and 21(b)(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation)Act, 1957 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1883. 3. Since the FIR disclosed the commission of 'schedule offences' under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for brevity “the PML Act”), the Enforcement Directorate registered E.C.I.R.No.3 of 2014 and after completing the investigation, filed a complaint in C.C.No.9 of 2018 before the Principal District Court (Special Court for the PML Act Cases), Madurai, against Panneer Mohammed and fourteen others, including R.R. Granites, which has been arrayed as A4, for quashing which, R.R. Granites are before this Court. 4. Heard Mr. Richardson Wilson, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused herein and Mr. R. Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Ms. G. Hema, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, respondent herein. 5. This quash petition deserves to be allowed on the short ground that, even according to the FIR, the predicate offence was allegedly committed by R.R. Granites from 2011-2012. Assuming for a moment as averred in the complaint that the predicate offence was committed from 2001-2012, the property that is said have been acquired by R.R. Granites was purchased by them on 31.01.2000 vide sale deed Doc.No.167/2000 in Sub-Registrar Office, Melur. 6. In the complaint, there is a reference to Doc.No.2111/2004 dated 29.06.2004, which actually is a lease deed that was entered into with the Government and not any property that was purchased. 7. 6. In the complaint, there is a reference to Doc.No.2111/2004 dated 29.06.2004, which actually is a lease deed that was entered into with the Government and not any property that was purchased. 7. The Additional Solicitor General in his usual candour brought to the notice of this Court paragraph no.9.2 in the counter affidavit dated 19.07.2019 that was filed by the Enforcement Directorate in this case, wherein, it has been stated as follows: “Shri Rajasekaran is one of the partners in M/s.R.R.Granites and he executed sale deed no.167/2000 with M/s.Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. & lease agreement for quarrying in document no.2111/2004 with Collector, Madurai District, on behalf of M/s.R.R.Granites in the capacity of managing partner.” 8. A reading of the above statement clearly shows that the property in question was purchased by Rajasekaran in the year 2000 and the lease agreement was entered into in the year 2004 with the District Collector for the purpose of quarrying. Thus, there are no proceeds of crime, which, the petitioner allegedly projected as untainted in this case. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceeding in C.C.No.9 of 2018 filed before the Principal District Court (Special Court for the PML Act Cases), Madurai, now pending on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and the consequential summon dated 21.12.2018 issued by the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai, are hereby quashed as against the petitioner. Connected Crl.M.Ps. are closed.