AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard, Ms. Archana Sapkale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Sachin Pawar, Retainer Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2-ED and Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1-Union of India and Mr. Yogesh Nakhawa, learned APP for the Respondent No. 3 – State.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of parties, heard finally.
Petitioner is Accused No. 3 in PMLA Special Case No. 02 of 2016, pending before the Special Judge, City Sessions Court, Greater Bombay (“Special Court”).
By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner assails the Order dated 24.10.2024 (Exhibit – “I”), passed by the Special Court on Exhibit – 1102 in PMLA Case No. 02 of 2016, which rejected the Petitioner’s Application seeking discharge.
Ms. Archana Sapkale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner states that Chhagan Bhujbal (Accused No. 1 in PMLA Special Case No. 02 of 2016) and other accused committed the scheduled offence, which was the subject matter of the three FIR’s, bearing Nos. 32 of 2015, 35 of 2015 and 69 of 2015, registered against them. That the proceeds of crime arose from the scheduled offence, leading the Enforcement Directorate to take over the investigation. She further states that the allegations against the Petitioner in PMLA Case No. 02 of 2016 are that the Petitioner knowingly engaged in criminal conspiracy, money laundering and defrauding the Government in connivance with public servants. She submits that allegations against the Petitioner are that the Petitioner has procured, channelized and layered illicit funds through bogus real estate transactions, fictitious documents created by his wife Pranita Prashant Chamankar, thereby, attracting liability for the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money laundering Act, 2002, (“PMLA, 2002”)
Ms. Archana Sapkale, states that Pranita Prashant Chamankar (wife of the Petitioner) was Accused No. 10 in FIR No. 35 of 2015, which was registered as ACB Special Case No. 10 of 2016 i.e. the scheduled offence for PMLA Case No. 02 of 2016.
Ms. Archana Sapkale states that vide order dated 31.07.2021, Pranita Prashant Chamankar (Accused No. 10), was discharged by the Special Court in ACB Special Case No. 10 of 2016. The order dated 31.07.2021 passed on the Application seeking discharge (Exhibit – 114) filed by Pranita Prashant Chamankar, records that none of the ingredients constituting the offences alleged under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860 are made out against the Pranita Prashant Chamankar. On the finding that no sufficient grounds for presuming that Pranita Prashant Chamankar has committed the offences charged in ACB Special Case No. 10 of 2016, Pranita Prashant Chamankar has been discharged in the said proceedings.
Petitioner filed an Application seeking discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in PMLA Special Case No. 02 of 2016, which was marked as Exhibit-1102. By order dated 24.10.2024, the Special Court dismissed the Application at Exhibit-1102.
Ms. Archana Sapkale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is not arrayed as an Accused in the FIR bearing No. 35 of 2015 or in ACB Special Case No. 10 of 2016 (scheduled offence); that the involvement of the Petitioner in PMLA Case No. 2 of 2016 was in view of the allegations that his wife Pranita Prashant Chamankar had received the proceeds of crime; that Pranita Prashant Chamankar has been discharged in ACB Special Case No. 10 of 2016 on the finding that no offence (scheduled offence) is made out against her, consequently no proceeds of crime; and that Pranita Prashant Chamankar is not an Accused in PMLA Case No. 2 of 2016. She submits that, on the factual matrix as it stands on record, the decision in the case ofVijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India1 is applicable to the Petitioner's case. She submits that in the absence of the scheduled offence, the proceedings under PMLA against the Petitioner are not maintainable.
Ms. Archana Sapkale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Vinodkumar Krishnamurari Goenka And Anr. v. Union of India And Anr2, particularly paragraphs 19 to 23 of that decision. She submits that the decision in the case of Vinodkumar Krishnamurari Goenka (supra) is squarely applicable to the Petitioner's case. She further submits that even the main Accused, Chhagan Bhujbal, and other co-accused have been discharged by the Special Court in Special PMLA case Nos. 2 of 2016 and 03 of 2018 by order dated 23.01.2026.
Mr. Sachin Pawar, learned Retainer Counsel for Respondent No. 2-ED, does not dispute the factual statements made by Ms. Archana Sapkale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, recorded in paragraph Nos. 5 to 10 hereinabove.
Mr. Sachin Pawar, learned Retainer Counsel for Respondent No. 2, submits that the facts in the case of the Petitioner are similar to those in Vinodkumar Krishnamurari Goenka (supra), as such the decision in that case would be applicable to the Petitioner's case.
Perused the record.
As submitted by Ms. Archana Sapkale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, the Petitioner was arraigned as an Accused in PMLA Case No. 02 of 2016 on the ground that the Petitioner had procured, channeled and layered illicit funds through his wife Pranita Prashant Chamankar. By order dated 31.07.2021, passed on Exhibit-114, filed by Pranita Prashant Chamankar has been discharged in the scheduled offence i.e. ACB Special Case No. 10 of 2016 pertaining to FIR bearing No. 35 of 2015 (Exhibit – G, Page Nos. 425 to 492 of the Petition paper book).
By the common order dated 09.09.2021, Chhagan Bhujbal (accused No. 1) along with Accused have been discharged in ACB Special Case No. 10 of 2016 pertaining to FIR bearing No. 35 of 2015 (Exhibit – H, Page Nos. 493 to 599 of the Petition paper book).
By a common order dated 23.01.2026 passed in PMLA Case No. 02 of 2016, the Application for discharge filed by Chhagan Bhujbal and other Accused in the said case has been allowed, thereby, resulting in their discharge.
The facts submitted by Ms. Archana Sapkale, in relation to the accusation and the involvement of the Petitioner in PMLA Case No. 02 of 2016 are not disputed by Mr. Sachin Pawar, learned Retainer Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.
In light of the above facts, Ms. Archana Sapkale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, is justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) and the decision of this Court in the case of Vinodkumar Krishnamurari Goenka (supra).
In view of the above and adopting the reasons in Vinodkumar Krishnamurari Goenka (supra), this Petition is allowed. The Order dated 24.10.2024 (Exhibit – “I”), passed by the Special Court in PMLA Case No. 02 of 2016 on Exhibit – 1102, is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Application filed by the Petitioner at Exhibit-1102 seeking discharge in PMLA Special Case No. 02 of 2016 is allowed. Rule made absolute on the above terms.
No orders as to costs.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3439 of 2026 is allowed.