WHETHER THE FIR AND CHARGE-SHEET, PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE

PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AND FUGITIVE ECONOMIC

OFFENDERS ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ?

It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that the proceedings in relation to the FIR and
Charge-sheet under the PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AND FUGITIVE ECONOMIC

OFFENDERS ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED [1] THE COURT HAS THE

AUTHORITY QUASHED THE FIR AND CHARGE-SHEET PROCEEDINGS[2] AS THE ESSENTIALS OF THE

OFFENCES OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERINGS AND FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT IS NOT BEING

FULFILLED AND [3] THE CONFESSIONS GIVEN BY A PERSON BEFORE A MAGISTRATE IS NOT BEEN

ADMISSIBLE AS AN EVIDENCE FOR SUCH PROCEEDINGS

1. That the court has the authority to quash the FIR and Charge-sheet proceedings

It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that the court has the authority to quash the
FIR and Charge-sheet proceedings. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Muniswami, the
honorable SC envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction under section 482
of CrPC can be applied:

 To give effect to an order under CrPC

 To prevent the abuse of process of to court
 And to secure the ends of justice

It is being humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the circumstances which are being mentioned
abovementioned case is being observed and fulfilled accordingly. As in the present case the essenetials of
the Act ( pmla and foi ) are not being followed because there is no clear or indirect indication that the
offences under the same statutes is being done.

The counsel humbly submits that there is no evidence as to which can be proved that the criminal activity
is been done under that same ACT by the petitioners. As mentioned in the case of RP Kapur v. State of
Punjab the court said that “when the allegations made to constitute an offence but there is no evidence
which can be proved than the FIR should be quashed”. There is nothing in the words of the section 482
of CrPC which restricts the exercise of the power of the court to prevent the abuse or process of court as
discussed in Anand kumar Mohatta v. State Department of Home and anr. The section 482 of CrPC
empowers the HC to use the power of quashing of FIR under the light of residuary powers. It is humbly
submitted before the court that the inherent powers under section 482 of CrPC can be exercised only
when no other remedy is available for litigant and no specific remedy is being provided by the statute as
discussed in the case of Kavita v. State and B.S. joshi v. state of Haryana. In the case of Shiv Prasad v.
state OF RAJASTHAN laid down a test to determine to determine whether there has been an abuse of any
court:

 Whether in the admitted circumstances it would be possible if a trial can be proceed, if that
particular case is being allowed to proceed.
 Whether a bare minimum statement of facts of case would be sufficient to convince HC that if it
is fit case law interference at intermediate case

The SC has laid down certain guidelines in relation to quashing of FIR in the case Parbatbhai Ahir v.
State of Gujarat

2. THAT THE ESSENTIALS OF THE OFFENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING IS NOT BEING

FULFILED.

It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that the offence of money laundering involves
disguising of financial assests so that they can be used without the tag of an illegal activity.
Money laundering means practice of filtering dirty money through series of transactions until
funds are cleaned or appear to be proceeds from illegal activity as discussed in the case of M
Shobana v. directorate of ED (assistant director). In the case of BR RAMA RAJU V. UOI
property derived or obtain directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity is
related to S offences.