JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to C.C.No.14 of 2017 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge (Special Court constituted under Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), 2002, Chennai and quash the same.) P.N. Prakash, J. 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2017 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Court (Special Court for Prevention of Money-Laundering Act Cases), Chennai. 2. There was no appearance for the petitioners on 07.03.2022. Therefore, we directed that the matter be posted under the caption "for dismissal" on 18.03.2022. On 18.03.2022, Mr.K.Pradeep Raj, learned counsel on record for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have obtained change of vakalat from him and therefore, he no longer represents them. However, we found that the petitioners have not filed any change of vakalat in the Registry. Therefore, on 18.03.2022, we directed the Registry to print the name of the petitioners and also the name of Mr.K.Pradeep Raj, in the cause list and post this case on 21.03.2022 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. On 21.03.2022, the names of the petitioner and Mr.K.Pradeep Raj was printed in the cause list, despite which, there was no representation for the petitioners. Therefore, we reserved orders, pored over the records and pass the following order. 3. The subject matter of the predicate offence is, a land measuring 67 cents in Valasaravakkam village belonging to Alamelu and her sister Mangalam. Finding that these two were residing elsewhere, the petitioners devised a dubious plan to usurp their property by fabricating documents. On coming to know of this, a police complaint was lodged, based on which, a case in CCB Crime No.34 of 2009 was registered against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 467, 471, 420 read with 120-B IPC and after completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.5718 of 2010 in the Court of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, initially against 6 accused, and later, based on further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., filed a supplementary charge sheet in C.C.No.66 of 2013, arraying totally 11 persons as accused, including the petitioners. Since the FIR disclosed the commission of a scheduled offence, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in ECIR.No.11 of 2011 on 09.03.2011 and took up investigation of the case. Since the FIR disclosed the commission of a scheduled offence, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in ECIR.No.11 of 2011 on 09.03.2011 and took up investigation of the case. After completing the investigation, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint in C.C.No.14 of 2017 in the Special Court for Prevention of Money-Laundering Act Cases, Chennai, for the offences under Section 45(1) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “the PML Act) against 4 accused persons, including the petitioners, for quashing which, A.2 and A.4 have filed the instant quash petition. 4. We carefully went through the grounds raised by the petitioners in the petition and also the records of the case. 5. The allegations against the petitioners in the impugned complaint in C.C.No.14 of 2017, in respect of the offences arising under the PML Act are as under: “5.1. Information was received in the office of the Complainant herein, that pursuant to the written complaint under Ref.No.7918/COP/VISITORS/2008 by one Shri.D.Nagarajan to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, Chennai alleging illegal arrogation of the land measuring 33 cents comprised of in S.No.47/1 and 47/2 of Valasaravakkam village purchased by his wife Smt.N.Mangalam from Shri.K.Kamalakannan on 06.07.1973 under the sale deed registered as Doc.No.2396/1973 of SRO, Kodambakkam and another extent of land measuring 331/5 cents comprised of in S.No.47/2 of Valasaravakkam village purchased by Smt.R.Alamelu, wife of his brother, Shri.D.Rajaram from Shri.K.Kamalakannan on 06.07.1973 under the sale deed registered as Doc. No.2395/1973 of SRO, Kodambakkam, the CCB, Chennai City Police, Chennai has registered an FIR in Crime No.34/2009 dated 28.01.2009 (Annexure-I) against S/Shri.Rajesh, Arokiyasamy, K.G.Ramesh Raj, R.S.Narayanan, N.Vasan, K.P.R.Ramanathan and accordingly initiated investigation. 5.2. Subsequently, the CCB, Chennai City Police, upon completion of the said investigations filed its Final Report before Hon’ble XI Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. had arraigned S/Shri.K.G.Ramesh Raj @ Murali, S/o.Ganesan, R.S.Narayanan, S/o.K.S.Raghunathan, K.P.R.Ramanathan, S/o.Periyakaruppan, N.Vasan, S/o.Nagarajan, R.Arokiyasamy, S/o.Rajamanickam Pillai and T.Rajesh, S/o.P.Thangappan accused of committing of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC in the fraudulent grabbing of vacant land with an extent of 14,472 sq.ft. each held in the names of Smt.Mangalam and Smt.Alamelu Ammal totally measuring 0.67 cents comprised of in S.No.47/2A2, 47/1B and 47/2A3 of Valsaravakkam village by resorting to fabrication of documents and forgery. each held in the names of Smt.Mangalam and Smt.Alamelu Ammal totally measuring 0.67 cents comprised of in S.No.47/2A2, 47/1B and 47/2A3 of Valsaravakkam village by resorting to fabrication of documents and forgery. The aforesaid Final Report filed on 16.04.2010 was taken into cognizance in C.C.No.5718/2010 (Annexue-II) of the Hon’ble XI Judicial Magistrate Court. 5.3. On the basis of the aforesaid information and the offences arraigned in the aforesaid FIR No.34/2009 dated 28.01.2009 being scheduled offences in terms of Sections 2(1)(x) & 2(1)(y) of the Act, inasmuch as an offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, prima facie appeared to had been committed, an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No.11/2011, dated 09.03.2011 (Annexure-IV) was registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai, for investigation of the offence of money laundering under the PMLA. 5.4. Later on 15.11.2016, the CCB, Chennai City Police has filed a Revised Final Report in C.C.No.66/2013 (Annexure-III) before Hon’ble Special Metropolitan Magistrate (Land Grabbing Cases)-II, Periamet, Chennai, under Section 173(2) of charging S/Shri.G.Ramesh Raj @ Murali, R.S.Narayanan, R.Arokiyasamy, T.Rajesh, K.P.R.Ramanthan, N.Vasan, Suruli Andavar, Karthikeyan, Smt.Saraswathi, Smt.Mynavathy and Shri.Naidu Amrutesh Reddy accused of committing of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC. It has been charged that Shri.T.Suruli Andavar, S/o.V.Thavamani Thevar with the active connivance of other accused persons had fraudulently caused the cancellation of earlier patta in respect of the aforesaid extents of land and its transfer in his name by resorting to falsification of registration with Document No.1427/1967 dated 12.04.1967 of SRO, Saidapet, Chennai, through a forged sale deed thereby insinuating a deceptive conveyance of the entire land extents in his name by Shri.Kamalakannan. It has also been charged that Shri.Suruli Andavar by deviously transferring the funds that were disbursed towards the ostensible sale consideration to S/Shri.G.Ramesh Raj, R.S.Narayanan and others had depicted the conspiracy to illegally arrogate aforesaid extents of land and to share the benefits derived out of such activity with his associates. Also it has been charged that Shri Naidu Amrutesh Reddy, S/o.Naidu Adikesava Reddy despite having knowledge on the encumbrance in the aforesaid extents of land and the pendency of the related criminal investigation had connived with the other perpetrators of crime and had instigated its fraudulent conveyance to him. 6. As stated above, Alamelu and her sister Mangalam were the owners of 67 cents of land in Virugambakkam village. 6. As stated above, Alamelu and her sister Mangalam were the owners of 67 cents of land in Virugambakkam village. In order to cheat those two octogenarians, one Suruli Andavar fabricated a sale deed dated 12.04.1967, as if one Kamalakannan had sold the said land to him. Thereafter, with the connivance of the officials of the Registration Department, he inserted this fabricated document into the records of the office of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet, as document No.1427 of 1967. On account of that, the Encumbrance Certificate started showing that document also. Armed with that, Suruli Andavar, along with K.G.Ramesh/1st petitioner, represented to one Naidu Amrutesh Reddy that the property is for sale and accordingly, Suruli Andavar received Rs.4.33 crores from Naidu Amrutesh Reddy and executed a sale deed dated 10.11.2011 registered as document No.6266 of 2011 on the file of the SRO, Virugambakkam. When all these frauds came to light, the police registered a case against the petitioners and now, they are facing a prosecution in C.C.No.66 of 2013 in the Court of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 467, 471, 420 read with 120-B IPC. 7. As regards the allegation against the petitioners in the impugned complaint in C.C.No.14 of 2017 that has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate, it is seen from paragraph 8.1 of the impugned complaint that K.G.Ramesh/1st petitioner has received Rs.25 lakhs from Naidu Amrutesh Reddy. In paragraph 11.6 of the impugned complaint, the allegations against K.G.Ramesh/1st petitioner have been set out as under: “11.6. Shri.K.G.Ramesh Raj by conniving in criminal acts of forgery of documents and its representation as genuine documents in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy in association with Shri T.Suruli Andavar and others had caused the fraudulent conveyance of the aforesaid extents of land held by Smt.N.Mangalam and Smt.R.Alamelu ultimately to Shri.Naidu Amrutesh Reddy, despite his knowledge on the encumbrance in the said land and the pendency of the related criminal investigation. Thus, Shri. K.G.Ramesh Raj by resorting to criminal activities as elucidated above, though passively had facilitated the illegal arrogation of the aforesaid extents of land/immovable property, which are the "proceeds of crime" as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA. Thus, Shri. K.G.Ramesh Raj by resorting to criminal activities as elucidated above, though passively had facilitated the illegal arrogation of the aforesaid extents of land/immovable property, which are the "proceeds of crime" as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA. Also, Shri.K.G.Ramesh Raj in order to facilitate placement, layering and integration of the funds disbursed towards the devious sale consideration to Shri. T.Suruli Andavar, had structured its disbursements into the S.B.A/c.No.16530100004742 caused to be opened in the name Shri. T.Suruli Andavar with IOB, Alandur Branch proximately prior to the subject transaction. Such funds derived as a corollary of criminal activities as aforesaid, which are nothing but the "proceeds of crime" as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA so remitted to the above mentioned account were instantly either transferred to different accounts or withdrawn in cach in the names of the persons/entities, who were found to be without any entitlement on the aforesaid property or any nexus with the subject transaction without any rational or plausible justification and without any other genuine underlying dealings. Hence, Shri.K.G.Ramesh Raj by orchestrating the placement and layering of the “proceeds of crime” for its ultimate integration typical of the ingredients of money laundering and by asserting himself as the feigned tenant of the aforesaid extents of land has actually involved himself in the process or activity connected to the “proceeds of crime” and by dissipating the purported sale consideration to his accomplices and to himself through a devious process of fund transmission camouflaging its actual source has been projecting it as untainted. 8. Similarly, the allegations against K.PR.Ramanathan/2nd petitioner, have been set out as under in paragraph 11.8 of the impugned complaint. 11.8. Shri.K.PR.Ramanathan by indulging in criminal acts of forgery of documents and its representation as genuine documents in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy with the active connivance of his associates had for a consideration facilitated the fraudulent arrogation of the aforesaid extents of land owned by Smt.N.Mangalam and Smt.R.Alamelu by illegally creating a Power of Attorney as assigned by Smt.Alamelu in favour of himself in the year 2008 and by the fraudulent execution of a Sale Agreement dated 12.06.2008 registered as Document No.3139 of 2008 of the SRO, Virugambakkam for the sale of the land extent held by Smt.Alamelu to Shri.N.Vasan while Smt.Alamelu had deceased on 20.12.2003 itself. Thus, Shri.K.PR.Ramanathan has actually involved himself in the process or activity connected to the "proceeds of crime" and has aided in its projection as untainted. 9. In the light of the aforesaid allegations, it cannot be stated that there are no prima facie materials against the petitioners for quashing the prosecution. However, no doubt, this very Bench has quashed the prosecution in C.C.No.14 of 2017 on the file of the Special Court for PML Act Cases, Chennai, as against Naidu Amrutesh Reddy (A.1) in Crl.O.P. No. 5099 of 2018 on 14.03.2022, on the simple ground that he had paid Rs.4.33 crores to Suruli Andavar and K.G.Ramesh Raj/1st petitioner for the land in question, believing that Suruli Andavar is the true owner and that he had not generated any proceeds of crime nor projected any proceeds of crime as untainted one. But, the petitioners stand on a different footing and therefore, the prosecution against them in C.C.No.14 of 2017 on the file of the Special Court for PML Act Cases, Chennai, cannot be quashed. In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. It is made clear that whatever observed in this order is only for the limited purpose of deciding this quash petition and the proceedings in C.C.Nos.66 of 2013 and 14 of 2017 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court and the Special Court for Prevention of Money-Laundering Act Cases, Chennai, respectively, shall be decided on their own merits, without being influenced by the observations made in this order.