Bombay High Court
Krishna Shantaram Chamankar And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 September, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:38407-DB
dtg J-WP-3400-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3400 OF 2025
1. Krishna Shantaram Chamankar ]
Age : 68 years, Indian inhabitant, ]
Residing at A/1001, Aditi CHS, ]
Opp. Versova Telephone Exchange, ]
SVP Nagar, MHADA, 4 Bungalows, ]
Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053. ]
2. ( Deleted as per Order dated 9th September 2025)
3. Prasanna Shantaram Chamankar ]
Age : 61 years, Indian inhabitant, ]
Residing at A/1001, Aditi CHS, ]
Opp. Versova Telephone Exchange, ]
SVP Nagar, MHADA, 4 Bungalows, ]
Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053. ]
4. K.S. Chamankar Enterprises ]
a Partnership Firm, registered ]
under the Partnership Act, 1932 ]
having its office at 703, 7th Floor, ]
Krishna Galaxy, Dutta Mandir, Road, ]
Near Vakola Bridge, Santacruz (East), ]
Mumbai 400 056. ] ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. Union of India ]
1/8
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2025 21:40:13 :::
dtg J-WP-3400-2025.doc
Through the Secretary, ]
Ministry of Finance, Government ]
of India, North Block, ]
New Delhi 110 001. ]
2. The Deputy Director ]
(Prevention of Money Laundering Act), ]
Directorate of Enforcement, ]
Zonal Office, Mumbai, ]
Kaiser-I-Hind Bldg, 4th Floor, ]
Currimbhoy Road, Ballard ]
Estate, Mumbai 400 001. ]
3. The State of Maharashtra ]
through office of the Public ]
Prosecutor, Criminal Appellate ]
Jurisdiction, High Court of ]
Judicature at Bombay. ] ...Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Shreeyash Lalit (Through V.C.) a/w Ms. Shweta R. Rathod i/b Elixir Legal
Services for Petitioners.
Ms. Manisha Jagtap for Respondent No.2.
Smt. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.3, State.
_______________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 2nd September 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 16th September 2025.
2/8
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2025 21:40:13 :::
dtg J-WP-3400-2025.doc
JUDGMENT ( Per : A. S. GADKARI, J.) :
-
1) By this Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the
Petitioners have prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing
and setting aside the charge-sheet filed in PMLA Special Case No. 2 of 2016,
arising out of ECIR/MBZO/07/2015 and ECIR/MBZO/08/2015, along with
all consequential proceedings against the Petitioners.
2) Heard Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. Jagtap,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Smt. Deshmukh, learned APP for
Respondent No.3, State. Perused record and the Affidavit-in-reply dated 19 th
August 2025, filed by Shri Ramswaroop Yadav, Assistant Director of
Respondent No.2.
3) Mr. Lalit, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted
that, the Petitioners have been discharged from the predicate offence by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater
Mumbai, in ACB Special Case No. 10 of 2016 (C.R. No. 35 of 2015), by its
Order dated 31st July 2021. That, the said Order has not been challenged by
the Respondent No.2 in last more than four years and has attained finality.
3.1) He drew our attention to para Nos. 37, 38 and 39 of Order dated
dtg J-WP-3400-2025.doc
31st July 2021, discharging the Petitioners by the trial Court from the
predicate offence. He submitted that, the trial Court has recorded a
categorical finding that, the Petitioner No.4 has constructed Maharashtra
Sadan at Delhi, High Mount Rest House and other buildings of RTO as per
the contract. He submitted that, as there was no material against the
Petitioners, the trial Court has discharged them from the predicate offence.
He submitted that, as the Petitioners have been discharged by the trial Court
from the predicate offence on para No. 382.8 of the conclusions in the case
of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary And Others Vs. Union of India And Others,
reported in (2023) 12 SCC 1 : (2023) 21 ITR-OL 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC
929, is squarely applicable to the Petitioners herein. Learned counsel for the
Petitioners submitted that, as the Petitioners have been finally discharged
from the scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money laundering
against them or anyone claiming such property being property linked or
stated to be scheduled offence through him and therefore the ECIR lodged by
Respondent No.2 against the Petitioners be quashed.
4) Ms. Jagtap, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent
No.2 submitted that, Shri Ramswaroop Yadav, Assistant Director of
Respondent No.2 has filed his Affidavit in opposition to the Petition. She
submitted that, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Niket
Kansal Vs. Union of India, through Enforcement Directorate, reported in
2025 SCC OnLine J&K 475, has taken a view that, even if the predicate
dtg J-WP-3400-2025.doc
offence is quashed or the accused persons therefrom are discharged, the
prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)
continues. She submitted that, specific pleadings to that effect in para No. 1
of the Affidavit has been taken by the Respondent No.2. She thereafter relied
on a decision in the case of Pavana Dibbur Vs. Directorate of Enforcement,
reported in (2023) 15 SCC 91 and submitted that, even if the Petitioners are
discharged from the predicate offence, the prosecution under PMLA would
continue. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 however fairly admitted
the fact that, the Petitioners have been discharged by the trial Court by its
Order dated 31st July 2021. She therefore prayed that, Petition may be
dismissed.
5) At the outset, it be noted here that, the Assistant Director of
Respondent No.2 in his Affidavit dated 19 th August 2025, in para No. 8.5 has
admitted the fact that, on the basis of FIR No. 35 of 2015, registered by ACB,
Mumbai, the Directorate of Enforcement has recorded the ECIR bearing No.
ECIR/MBZO/07/2015, dated 17th June 2015 and initiated the investigation
under PMLA. It be noted here that, the said FIR No. 35 of 2015, registered
with ACB, Mumbai, was the predicate offence as per the schedule appended
to the PMLA, on the basis of which, Respondent No.2 has initiated
prosecution against the Petitioners by recording the said ECIR. It is an
admitted fact on record that, the Order dated 31 st July 2021, has attained
finality, as it has not been challenged by the ACB, Mumbai, being the
dtg J-WP-3400-2025.doc
prosecuting Agency. The Petitioners in para No. 2 of the Petition have
specifically pleaded that, they have been discharged from the said case filed
by the ACB, Mumbai.
5.1) At the further outset, it may be noted that, the decision in the
case of Niket Kansal (supra), has been rendered by the learned single Judge
of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and under the law, it has no binding
effect on this Court. Even otherwise a bare perusal of the said decision would
clearly indicate that, in the conclusions drawn by the Hon'ble Judge of the
said High Court, in para Nos. 39, 40 and 42 it has been held that, the ruling
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) is
binding for all subordinate Courts. That, the judgment must be applied with
careful consideration of the specific factual context and legal matters unique
to each case, necessitating a case-by-case analysis.
5.2) In the case of Pavana Dibbur (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered the issue that, 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 or not. While enumerating its conclusions, in para No.
31.2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"31.2 Even if an accused shown in the complaint under PMLA
is not an accused in the scheduled offence, he will benefit
from the acquittal of all the accused in the scheduled
dtg J-WP-3400-2025.doc
offence or discharge of all the accused in the scheduled
offence. Similarly, he will get the benefit of the order of
quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence;"
5.3) It be noted here that, the decision in the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (supra), is rendered by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and has its own binding effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Pavana Dibbur (supra), has not disturbed the conclusions
enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (supra). Para No. 382.8 of conclusions, reads as under :
"382.8 The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent
on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process
or activity connected with such property, which constitutes
the offence of money laundering. The authorities under the
2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or
on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been
committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional
police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of
criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the
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 any one claiming such
property being the property linked to stated scheduled
offence through him."
5.4) As noted earlier, it is an admitted fact on record that, the
dtg J-WP-3400-2025.doc
Petitioners have been discharged by the trial Court from the predicate
offence registered by the ACB, Mumbai Division, by its Order dated 31 st July
2021 and the said Order has attained finality.
5.5) In view thereof, according to us, the conclusion enumerated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.382.8 in the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (supra), squarely applies to the Petitioners and therefore the
ECIR and the charge-sheet filed thereof, registered by Respondent No.2 qua
the Petitioners, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6) In view of the above discussion, Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a).
( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )
