JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. The present petition has been filed seeking the following substantive relief:- i. Quash ECIR bearing No.ECIR/SHSZO/02/2022 dated 20.06.2022 and all proceedings emanating therefrom. ii. Quash and set aside order dated 05.04.2024 passed in Case No.1 of 24 titled State Vs. Lakhwinder Singh & Ors by Ld. Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. iii. Quash the prosecution complaint dated 11.03.2024, filed by the respondent Directorate in ECIR bearing ECIR No.SHSZO/02/2022 dated 22.06.2022 in the matter of State Vs. Lakhwinder Singh and Ors. bearing Case No.1/2024, before Ld. Special Court (PMLA), Dharamshala and all proceedings consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 3. The admitted facts, in the case at hand, are on 20.06.2022, the Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR/chargesheet bearing No.SHSZO/02/2022. In pursuance to the ECIR, a letter under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was sent by the Enforcement Directorate to the concerned Superintendent of Police, Una. By virtue of the said letter, the Superintendent of Police, Una was informed about the illegal mining being done by the petitioner and other persons. The Enforcement Directorate vide letter dated 25.09.2022, in the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances had requested the concerned jurisdictional police for registering a FIR under Section 120B and 420 IPC. 4. On 26.09.2022, a FIR No.315 of 2022, under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC was registered by the jurisdictional police in pursuance to the aforesaid letter dated 25.09.2022. In pursuance to the aforesaid FIR, on 26.09.2022, the petitioner was arrested. As a sequel thereto, the petitioner filed a bail petition, which was allowed by the High Court on 10.11.2022. 5. In the aforesaid FIR, challan has been presented. A copy of the challan has been placed on record. From a perusal of the challan, it is evident that the chalan, in the case at hand, has been filed under the provisions of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals Act and offences under the Indian Penal Code namely 120B and 420 of IPC are conspicuous by absence. 6. The challan, in the case at hand, was presented in the Court on 30.07.2024. In the aforesaid matter, cognizance has been taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 06.08.2024 under the Mines and Minerals Act. 7. 6. The challan, in the case at hand, was presented in the Court on 30.07.2024. In the aforesaid matter, cognizance has been taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 06.08.2024 under the Mines and Minerals Act. 7. Prior to filing of the challan, in the case at hand, the Enforcement Directorate had filed a complaint on 11.03.2024 under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against the petitioner. The learned Special Court Dharamshala took cognizance of the aforesaid complaint on 05.04.2024 and issued summons to the present petitioner, in the case at hand. 8. From reliefs being sought, it is evident that the petitioner, in the case at hand, is aggrieved by the prosecution complaint dated 11.03.2024, issuance of summons by the Special Court Dharamshala on 05.04.2024 after taking cognizance thereupon. 9. In the aforesaid admitted backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences, in the case at hand, with respect to which the complaint has been lodged against the petitioner by the Enforcement Directorate dated 11.03.2024, there exist no scheduled offences (predicate offences). 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the offence under Section 120B of IPC shall not by itself be a scheduled offence unless conspiracy alleged is of committing of an offence specifically included in the Schedule under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Pavana Dibbur Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2024 SC 117 . 11. Other than the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as FIR No.315 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022 is concerned, the jurisdictional Police after conducting investigation has filed a challan under the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act. Cognizance thereupon has also been taken qua offences under the Mines and Minerals Act by the Court of competent jurisdiction. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Enforcement Directorate cannot resort to action against any person for money laundering on an assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been committed unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before a competent forum. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment reported 2022 SCC Online SC 929, titled Vijay Mandal Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. 13. Faced with the aforesaid admitted facts and position of law, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India fairly submits that no fault can be found with the aforesaid contentions so being raised. In view thereof, aforesaid complaint dated 11.03.2024, ECIR dated 20.06.2022, prosecution complaint dated 11.03.2024 and summoning order dated 05.04.2024 issued in the matter of State Versus Lakhwinder Singh in case bearing No.1/24, before the learned Special Court (PMLA) Dharamshala, are quashed. It is however, made clear that notwithstanding the aforesaid quashing, it shall remain open to the Enforcement Directorate to register ECIR afresh and launch prosecution against the petitioner under Section 3 of the PMLA, if ultimately the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una frames charges, alters charges in terms of Section 239 of BNSS for offence/offences, which are specifically mentioned in the schedule of PMLA. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.