JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the entire records in CC.No.07 of 2018 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, Special Court Constituted under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.07 of 2018 against the petitioners.) P.N. Prakash, J. 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.07 of 2018 pending on the file of Special Court Constituted under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Chennai. 2. On a complaint given by one Dinesh Kumar, a case in Crime No.454 of 2008 on the file of K-1, Sembiam Police Station was registered under Section 420 of IPC r/w Section 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 r/w 120-B of IPC against one M/s.QuestNet Enterprises India Private Limited. This case was transferred from the file of K-1, Sembiam Police Station to CB CID by the orders of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, dated 22.05.2008. Since there were several FIRs pending against the said company all over Tamil Nadu, they were all clubbed together in Crime No.454 of 2008 and the CB CID conducted a comprehensive investigation and filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.3876 of 2009 on 21.10.2009 in the court of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for the aforesaid offences as against 25 accused including M/s.QuestNet Enterprises India Private Limited (A1). Since the police case disclosed the commission of a scheduled offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Enforcement Directorate, registered a case in ECIR/CEZO/11/2016 (KCM) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022 and after completing the investigation filed a complaint in C.C.No.07 of 2018 in the Special Court for PMLA Cases (Principal Sessions Court), Chennai, against 12 accused, including 6 entities. While so, the accused in C.C.No.3876 of 2009 filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.O.P.No.24461 of 2016 in which this court appointed Honourable Mr.Justice S.Jagadeesan, Former Judge of this Court as Settlement Commissioner to go into the affairs of the M/s.QuestNet Enterprises India Private Limited and disburse the amounts that were due to the various customers. It may be pertinent to extract the portion of the order dated 23.10.2017 in Crl.O.P.No.24461 of 2016:- “10. It may be pertinent to extract the portion of the order dated 23.10.2017 in Crl.O.P.No.24461 of 2016:- “10. The above events abridged from the Settlement Commissioner’s final report are not exhaustive, but just a few, reflecting on the Company’s conduct. I am constrained to refer to them, consciously, to ensure that such intrusions should not further occur, thereby making it difficult during this second effort. While I impose trust on the petitioner’s submission that they really intend to settle all its members for the purpose of compounding the offences, this Court will not permit any further dilatory techniques of thwarting or delaying either the adjudication or the disbursement. This Court shall not permit the Company to henceforth turn the efforts initiated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court into a mockery. Hence, there shall be a direction to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai to expedite the trial in C.C. No. 3876 of 2009 and complete the same, within six months from today. However, the pronouncement of the verdict in C.C. No. 3876 of 2009 shall be kept in abeyance, until further orders of this Court in view of the proposed adjudication. In addition to this, the following further directions are issued: a) The Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.Jagadeesan, Former Judge of the Madras High Court is required to adjudicate any claimants who may appear before him and determine the claim amount on convincing proof and evidence which may be placed before him in connection with the money circulation scheme floated by M/s. QUESTNET ENTERPRISES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Chennai. b) Mr.B.S.Anandakumar and Ms.Kalarani, Inspectors of Police, CBCID, Metro Wing, Chennai, as well as the representatives of the petitioners’ company, shall assist the Hon’ble Settlement Commissioner during such adjudication and disbursement of the amounts to the claimants. The Hon’ble Commissioner is also at liberty to call for assistance from any of the Investigating Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu, before whom the complaints against the petitioners were made and such police officers shall extend the required assistance. c) The venue, date and place of disbursement shall be fixed at the discretion of the Hon’ble Settlement Commissioner. d) It is open to the Hon’ble Settlement Commissioner to cast wide publicity with the help of the CBCID, Metro Wing, Chennai in all leading newspapers in the State of Tamilnadu, television channels as well as other media with regard to the adjudication/disbursement. d) It is open to the Hon’ble Settlement Commissioner to cast wide publicity with the help of the CBCID, Metro Wing, Chennai in all leading newspapers in the State of Tamilnadu, television channels as well as other media with regard to the adjudication/disbursement. e) The initial tenure of the Hon’ble Settlement Commissioner shall be fixed for a period of six months from the date of this order. f) The principal seat of the Commission shall be at Chennai and the required place, infrastructure, staff and all other amenities shall be provided to him by the CBCID, Chennai and similar facilities shall also be extended to the Hon’ble Commissioner in all other Districts where the Hon’ble Commissioner seeks, by the concerned Superintendent of Police of such Districts. It would be open to the Hon’ble Commissioner to seek for providing venues where adjudication/disbursement, if sought to be made in other Districts, from the Secretary, Law Department of Tamil Nadu. In case of such request, the Secretary, Law Department of Tamil Nadu shall forthwith consider the same favourably along with all infrastructure and other amenities. g) Apart from the staff provided by the CBCID for assisting the Hon’ble Settlement Commissioner, the District Judges of the concerned Districts in which the adjudication and disbursement takes place shall also depute at least one Stenographer and one Junior Assistant in the concerned District to assist the Hon’ble Settlement Commissioner. h) The petitioners’ Company shall pay a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs as initial remuneration to the Hon’ble Commissioner, within 10 days from today and thereafter, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month to cover the incidental expenses. i) It will be open to the Hon’ble Settlement Commissioner that after adjudication of the claim amounts, to issue pay orders/cheques to the legitimate claimants and the payee Bank shall, without reference to the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.4715 of 2009 in Crl.O.P.No.4 of 2009 dated 11.09.2009, shall felicitate honouring of such an instrument. j) It will also be open to the Hon’ble Settlement Commissioner to adjudicate claims from the legal heirs of such persons, in case of death of the claimants. k) The Hon’ble Commissioner shall be at liberty to take all decisions whatsoever for the effective implementation of the above order. 11. j) It will also be open to the Hon’ble Settlement Commissioner to adjudicate claims from the legal heirs of such persons, in case of death of the claimants. k) The Hon’ble Commissioner shall be at liberty to take all decisions whatsoever for the effective implementation of the above order. 11. In view of the huge number of the claimants spread throughout the State of Tamilnadu, there might arise some practical impediments during the adjudication/disbursement process. Hence, the Registry is directed to post this matter on 30.11.2017 for receiving an interim report of the Hon’ble Settlement Commissioner seeking for any clarification, if need be.” 3. Pursuant to the above, the Settlement Commissioner completed the work that was assigned to him and submitted a report to this court, based on which, the prosecution in C.C.No.3876 of 2009 was quashed by this Court, by order dated 02.01.2020 in Crl.O.P.No.30144 of 2019 and Crl.O.P.No.24461 of 2016. The operative portion of the said order runs thus:- “12. In this background, I am constrained to take a view that the impugned criminal case could be quashed for the following two reasons: (i) Firstly, the amount due to 141 unwilling victims have been secured in the deposits of the petitioners' bank accounts which have already been freezed. (ii) In an identical case, in T.R.Patchamujithu @ Parivendhar vs. State of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police and others [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7295 of 2017 dated 22.09.2017], the Hon'ble Apex Court thought it fit to quash the FIR by directing the Commissioner to adjudicate claims made by the victims from the accused therein. Brief facts of that case are as follows: (a) When a criminal complaint came to be registered against the accused therein on the ground that the admission fees paid for various medical courses was neither returned nor were seats allotted to candidates, petition to quash the FIR was filed by the accused with an offer to repay the amount. I had appointed a retired Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court as Settlement Commissioner for the purpose of disbursing the amount to 136 claimants. However, since all the complainants had not offered to render 'No Objection' for quashing the criminal proceedings, I had directed the investigation to continue and file a final report within a stipulated time. I had appointed a retired Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court as Settlement Commissioner for the purpose of disbursing the amount to 136 claimants. However, since all the complainants had not offered to render 'No Objection' for quashing the criminal proceedings, I had directed the investigation to continue and file a final report within a stipulated time. The accused had filed an appeal against this order in S.L.A.No.7295 of 2017 and the Hon'ble Apex Court, by its order dated 22.09.2017 had taken into consideration the 'No Objection' rendered by one among the many claimants with a further direction to the rest of the claimants to file affidavits expressing their no objections in quashing criminal proceedings as a pre-condition for disbursement. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: 'Learned counsel appearing for the first complainant/Dr.K.Jayachandran (respondent no.2) on caveat submits that if the money is released as directed by the High Court, he shall have no objection for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid, provided that the money which was deposited is released back to the claimants by the Commissioner appointed by the High Court. We find that there are 136 claimants. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that all these claimants are ready to make the aforesaid statement on payment of dues as directed by the High Court. This is acceptable to the petitioner as well. In these circumstances, we dispose of this petition with the following directions: a) All the claimants are directed to approach the High Court with the aforesaid request by filing affidavits stating that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR insofar as the petitioner is concerned. b) On filing the affidavits the High Court shall quash the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR insofar as the petitioner is concerned. c) Till such time these affidavits are filed and the order of the quashing is passed by the High Court the amount shall not be disbursed and the amount shall be disbursed only after filing of the affidavits. d) The petitioner shall also be involved in the aforesaid process so that he is able to verify that only genuine persons have filed the affidavits and received the payments. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.” 13. d) The petitioner shall also be involved in the aforesaid process so that he is able to verify that only genuine persons have filed the affidavits and received the payments. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.” 13. Drawing inference from the aforesaid decision and by taking into account the overall settlements received by a majority of the claimants, the criminal proceedings could be quashed by this ground also. 14. Before parting with a case, this Court places its appreciation to the significant and enormous task rendered by both the Hon'ble Settlement Commissioners in facilitating disbursement of the amounts to the majority of the legitimate claimants. 15. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned C.C.No.3876 of 2009 now pending on the file of the Special Magistrate at Allikulam Road, Chennai, is quashed. Crl.O.P.No.30144 of 2019 thus stands allowed. The prayer sought for in Crl.O.P.No.24461 of 2016 has become infructuous, since the Advocate/Settlement Commissioner has also already been appointed and thus, Crl.O.P.No.24461 of 2016 stands closed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” 4. Challenging the prosecution in C.C.No.07 of 2018 that has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate, all the 12 accused therein have filed the present quash petition. 5. Heard Mr.P.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and Mr.S.Sasikumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor (ED cases) for the respondent/complainant. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused drew our attention to sub-clause v (d) of para 467 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:- “467. In light of the above analysis, we now proceed to summarise our conclusion on seminal points in issue in the following terms:— ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (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 jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. 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 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.” 7. In view of the aforesaid categorical pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the quash petition deserves to be allowed since the prosecution of the accused in the predicate offence in C.C.No.3876 of 2009 has already been quashed by this court as stated above. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the prosecution in C.C.No.07/2018 on the file Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court Constituted under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Chennai, is hereby quashed in its entirety. Consequently, connected MP is closed.