ORDER : The petitioner is the Bishop and Moderator of the Church of South India (CSI). He is also the Chairman of all educational institutions under the South Kerala Diocese, including the Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College. In 2019, parents of aspiring medical students filed criminal complaints, alleging that large sums of money was collected from them, by promising admissions to MBBS and PG courses in the Medical College. After collecting the amounts, neither was the promised admissions provided nor the amounts refunded. The Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala enquired into the allegations and recommended the Government to take appropriate steps to ensure refund of the amounts collected from the complainants. Acting on the recommendation, the Government ordered Crime Branch investigation into the FIRs registered at the Vellarada Police Station based on the complaints submitted by the deceived parents. Thereupon, the Crime Branch registered multiple cases under various penal provisions, including Sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC, against the petitioner and others. While the Crime Branch investigation was in progress, the Enforcement Directorate/1 st respondent recorded ECIR/KCZO/11/2020 dated 12.03.2020 and started investigation under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against the following persons; (i) Dr. Bennet Abraham, Director of Dr. SMCSI Medical College and Hospital (ii) Rev. A. Dharmaraj Rasalam, Chairman of Dr. SMCSI Medical College and Hospital (iii) Sri. P. Thankaraj, Former Comptroller of Dr SMCSI Medical College and Hospital and (iv) Dr. P. Madhusoodanan, Former Principal of Dr SMCSI Medical College and Hospital and other administrative officials. Thereafter, on 08.05.2024, the 1 st respondent filed Annexure A1 Complaint against the petitioner and five others, alleging commission of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 70, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. This Crl.M.C. is filed seeking to quash all proceedings against the petitioner in PMLA S.C.No.3 of 2024 pending before the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)- II, Ernakulam. 2. Adv. Shinu J. Pillai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, put forth the following contentions; Being the Bishop of CSI and de facto Chairman of multiple educational institutions, the petitioner is not directly involved in their day-to-day administration. As far as medical admissions are concerned, the petitioner had only advised the parents, who had approached him to meet the concerned officials. Shinu J. Pillai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, put forth the following contentions; Being the Bishop of CSI and de facto Chairman of multiple educational institutions, the petitioner is not directly involved in their day-to-day administration. As far as medical admissions are concerned, the petitioner had only advised the parents, who had approached him to meet the concerned officials. Upon investigation, the Crime Branch was convinced that the petitioner had not deceived the complainants and therefore his name was omitted from the final reports filed before the Magistrate Court. It is stated in the final report that allegations were raised against the petitioner on the belief that naming a person of the petitioner's stature would expedite the refund process. According to the Counsel, non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the final reports is equivalent to his exoneration in the scheduled offence and he cannot therefore be prosecuted for money laundering. Legal support for the argument is sought to be drawn from the decision of the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others , [ (2023) 12 SCC 1 ] , with specific emphasis on paragraph 467(d) wherein it is held that, once a person is fully discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence, or if the criminal case against him is quashed by the competent court, there can be no offence of money laundering against that person. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the High Court of Telangana in M/s.Smartcoin Financials Pvt.Ltd. v. The Deputy Director and Another, [2024 (3) ALT (Crl) 480] and that of this Court in Vinod Mathew Wilson v. Union of India represented by its Secretary and Others, [2024 SCC OnLine Ker 2348]. It is submitted that in M/s.Smartcoin Financials Pvt.Ltd. (supra), the Telangana High Court had quashed the proceedings for money laundering initiated against the petitioner therein, as no predicate offence was in existence. It is the submission of the learned counsel that similar view is expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vinod Mathew Wilson (supra). It is contended that, continuance of proceedings under the PMLA against the petitioner, without he being accused of having committed the predicate offence, is nothing but an abuse of process of court. 3. Adv. It is the submission of the learned counsel that similar view is expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vinod Mathew Wilson (supra). It is contended that, continuance of proceedings under the PMLA against the petitioner, without he being accused of having committed the predicate offence, is nothing but an abuse of process of court. 3. Adv. Jaishankar V. Nair appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the challenge is premature since, as of date, all final reports filed by the Crime Branch have not been accepted by the jurisdictional Magistrate. Moreover, non- inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the final reports filed with respect to the scheduled offences, will not absolve him from being prosecuted for the offence of money laundering. To buttress the contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement , [ (2023) 15 SCC 91 ] and that of the Madras High Court in P. Rajendran v Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, [2022 SCC OnLine Mad. 9007]. It is submitted that, from the investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate it had come out that an amount of Rs.7,22,50,000/- was collected from 28 parents by promising admission to their children in the Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College, Karakonam. The investigation also revealed that the petitioner used to send parents of prospective students to Sri. Thankaraj, the then Comptroller of the Medical College and at his direction, the parents used to handover money to Smt.Shiji, the Accounts Department Clerk in the Medical College. Part of that cash was used for developing the infrastructure of the Medical College and the remaining Rs.3 crores was handed over to the parent organization, the South Kerala Diocese and utilised for making payment towards contract works. The petitioner's role in the trail of the tainted money is well-established and he is therefore liable to be prosecuted for the offence of money laundering. 4. The arguments give rise to the question whether, non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the final reports will, by itself, lead to his exoneration in the offence of money laundering under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. Hence, it will be apposite to read Section 3, extracted hereunder for easy reference; Section 3. 4. The arguments give rise to the question whether, non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the final reports will, by itself, lead to his exoneration in the offence of money laundering under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. Hence, it will be apposite to read Section 3, extracted hereunder for easy reference; Section 3. Offence of money laundering: Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,— (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely; (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.” Going by the provision, any person, who directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or gets actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime is guilty of the offence of money laundering. The process and activities connected with the proceeds of crime are concealment or possession or acquisition or use of proceeds of crime as well as projection or claiming of proceeds of crime as untainted property in any manner whatsoever. Going by the expansive meaning of the expression in Section 2(u), 'proceeds of crime' takes in any property obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity. As per Section 2(v) 'property' means property or assets of any description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, including deeds and instruments. Going by the expansive meaning of the expression in Section 2(u), 'proceeds of crime' takes in any property obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity. As per Section 2(v) 'property' means property or assets of any description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, including deeds and instruments. A conjoint reading of the above provisions leaves no room for doubt that any person indulging, involving or attempting, or even assisting in doing any of the processes or activities enumerated in the explanation to Section 3 is guilty of the offence of money laundering. 5. The question whether Section 3 of PMLA is a stand-alone offence needs no further deliberation in view of the following exposition in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra); “ 134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear th at the offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form — be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence — except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime.” (underline supplied) 6. The legal position is further clarified in Pavana Dibbur as under ; “ 17. Coming back to Section 3 PMLA, on its plain reading, an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed. For example, let us take the case of a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime. In that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 PMLA. To give a concrete example, the offences under Sections 384 to 389 IPC relating to “extortion” are scheduled offences included in Para 1 of the Schedule to PMLA. In that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 PMLA. To give a concrete example, the offences under Sections 384 to 389 IPC relating to “extortion” are scheduled offences included in Para 1 of the Schedule to PMLA. An accused may commit a crime of extortion covered by Sections 384 to 389 IPC and extort money. Subsequently, a person unconnected with the offence of extortion may assist the said accused in the concealment of the proceeds of extortion. In such a case, the person who assists the accused in the scheduled offence for concealing the proceeds of the crime of extortion can be guilty of the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. What is held in para 135 of the decision of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 ] supports the above conclusion. The conditions precedent for attracting the offence under Section 3 PMLA are that there must be a scheduled offence and that there must be proceeds of crime in relation to the scheduled offence as defined in clause (u) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 PMLA. 18. In a given case, if the prosecution for the scheduled offence ends in the acquittal of all the accused or discharge of all the accused or the proceedings of the scheduled offence are quashed in its entirety, the scheduled offence will not exist, and therefore, no one can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 3 PMLA as there will not be any proceeds of crime. Thus, in such a case, the accused against whom the complaint under Section 3 PMLA is filed will benefit from the scheduled offence ending by acquittal or discharge of all the accused. Similarly, he will get the benefit of quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence. However, an accused in PMLA case who comes into the picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence. Such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists. However, an accused in PMLA case who comes into the picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence. Such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists. Thus, the second contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not shown as an accused in the charge-sheets filed in the scheduled offences deserves to be rejected.” (underline supplied) 7. In P.Rajendran (supra), the High Court of Madras correctly held that the benefit of discharge/acquittal or quashing of the predicate offence cannot be extended to a person who has not been arrayed as an accused in the predicate offence, since the offence under the PMLA is a stand- alone offence and is different and distinct from the predicate offence. 8. True, in paragraph 467(d) of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary the Apex Court has held that if a 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 anyone, claiming such property to be the property linked to the scheduled offence through him. In the petitioner's case, apart from the allegation of having cheated the parents of prospective students, regarding which the final reports are filed, there is a separate allegation that the proceeds of crime generated by cheating the parents were used for construction works of the South Kerala Diocese and is thus involved in the use and concealment of the proceeds of crime. For the sake of clarity the specific allegation in Annexure A1 complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate is extracted below; “That wherever the parents brought the money as per their discussions with Dr. Bennet Abraham or Bishop. Shri Thankaraj and Smt. Shiji used to collect it and they used to enter it in the register maintained with them. The said register maintained by Shri. Thankaraj was like parallel book of account maintained and it was in the custody of Shri. Thankaraj or Smt. Shiji and the said money collected by them as per the instructions of Dr. Bennet Abraham was never brought in to the book of accounts of Dr. SM CSI Medical College, Karakonam. The said register maintained by Shri. Thankaraj was like parallel book of account maintained and it was in the custody of Shri. Thankaraj or Smt. Shiji and the said money collected by them as per the instructions of Dr. Bennet Abraham was never brought in to the book of accounts of Dr. SM CSI Medical College, Karakonam. (vii) Further investigation revealed that around Rs. 7 Crores was collected in cash from the parents of the aspiring students in the pretext of giving admission to Dr.SM CSI Medical College, Karakonam and part of the said cash was used for developing infrastructure of Dr. SM CSI Medical College, Karakonam and remaining around Rs. 3 crores was handed over to the parent organization i.e. South Kerala Diocese which was further used by SKD for making payments towards contract works entrusted to M/s.Micheal Builders and Develpors of Shri.Praveen T.T and all the payments done to Shri.Praveen T.T. were made in cash.” In the light of the above specific allegation, the findings in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary will not be of any help to the petitioner, since the discussion therein is not concerning a situation like the present where money laundering is alleged as a distinct offence. In Pavana Dibbur the Apex Court held that a person not involved in the original criminal activity that had resulted in the generation of proceeds of crime can be prosecuted under the PMLA if he is found to have been involved in the concealment, possession, acquisition, user etc. in relation to the proceeds of crime. If so, a person, whose name was included in the FIR registered for the scheduled offence but omitted in the final report, can also be prosecuted under the PMLA, if he is allegedly involved in the concealment or use of the proceeds of crime. The reason being that, the allegation regarding a person’s involvement in process or activities connected with the proceeds of crime can subsist independently, even if his involvement in generation of the funds, i.e., proceeds of crime, is not proved. For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C.is dismissed.