Orissa High Court
Biranchi Narayan Mishra vs Union Of India & Another .... Opp. ... on 21 November, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 1756 of 2019
Biranchi Narayan Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
Union of India & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S. Nayak, Retainer
Counsel-cum-Special P.P. (CBI)
Mr. G. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
For O.P. No.2
CRLMC No. 1758 of 2019
Trilochan Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
Union of India & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S. Nayak, Retainer
Counsel-cum-Special P.P. (CBI)
Mr. G. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
For O.P. No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 21.11.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. Heard learned counsels for both the Parties.
2. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioners calls in question the order
dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Court (PMLA), Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Complaint Case (PMLA)
No.61 of 2018. CRLMC No.1756 of 2019 has been filed by Biranchi
Narayan Mishra, while CRLMC No.1758 of 2019 has been filed by
Trilochan Mishra, both seeking quashment of the aforesaid order of
cognizance. Since the factual background underlying these CRLMCs
stands on the same footing as that involved in CRLREV No.119 of
2023 arising out of Chhatrapur P.S. Case No.119 of 2015, the
consequent G.R. Case and the prosecution initiated in Complaint Case
(PMLA) No.61 of 2018, the present CRLMCs were heard analogously
with the said criminal revision. While the CRLMCs are being disposed
of by this common judgment, the CRLREV has been considered and
decided separately.
3. The background facts, in brief, are that Opposite Party No.2-the
Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India,
Bhubaneswar filed a complaint under Section 45 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002, which was registered as Complaint Case
(PMLA) No.61 of 2018 before the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at
Bhubaneswar-cum-Special Court under the said Act. In the complaint,
it was prayed that cognizance be taken of the offence of money
laundering and that the Petitioners be proceeded against in accordance
with law. A further prayer was made for punishing the accused persons
for the offences under Section 3 read with Sections 70(1) and 70(2) of
the PMLA, punishable under Section 4 thereof, as well as for the
scheduled offences arising out of Chhatrapur P.S. Case No.119 dated
03.09.2015, later converted to CID, CB P.S. Case No.28 of 2015 under
Sections 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 of the IPC. The
Enforcement Directorate also sought confiscation of the properties
alleged to be involved in the offence of money laundering in terms of
Section 8(5) of the PMLA. Pursuant to the said complaint, the learned
court below took cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the
PMLA by order dated 25.09.2018. It is also relevant to note that
Opposite Party No.2 subsequently filed a supplementary complaint
under Section 45 of the PMLA reiterating its earlier prayers.
4. Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for both
Petitioners, submits that the impugned order of cognizance dated
25.09.2018 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed in
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. He contends that the entire PMLA prosecution is founded upon
Chhatrapur P.S. Case No.119 of 2015 and the consequent G.R. Case, in
respect of which this Court, in CRLMC No.3068 of 2019, has already
quashed the cognizance taken against Petitioner-Trilochan Mishra.
According to him, once the foundational scheduled offence is nullified,
the continuation of cognizance under the PMLA becomes legally
impermissible not only qua Trilochan but equally qua Petitioner-
Biranchi Narayan, because the alleged "proceeds of crime" arise if at
all, from the same factual matrix and the same set of transactions. He
submits that the coordinate Bench judgment in CRLMC No.3068 of
2019 has conclusively held that no prima facie case exists even to
proceed in the scheduled offence, and therefore, the PMLA complaint,
which is merely consequential, cannot survive on its own. It is argued
that the law does not recognise a situation where one Petitioner is freed
from the predicate offence but the other continues to face PMLA
proceedings founded on the same occurrence and same chain of
transactions. Relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in
Sushil Kumar Katiyar vs. Union of India & Others, Mr. Tripathy
submits that the concept of "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u)
of the PMLA necessarily presupposes the existence of a legally
sustainable scheduled offence. Where the entire allegation in the
predicate FIR pertains merely to execution of a sale deed in place of a
gift deed, without any monetary transfer or creation of illicit gain, there
is no "proceeds of crime" in the eye of law. Consequently, cognizance
under Section 4 of the PMLA is wholly without jurisdiction. He further
submits that the Enforcement Directorate has not shown even prima
facie that any property was "derived or obtained" from the alleged
criminal activity, much less that the Petitioners possessed or projected
such property as untainted. In the absence of a subsisting scheduled
offence and in absence of any financial transaction capable of giving
rise to "proceeds of crime," the very assumption of jurisdiction by the
learned Special Court is vitiated. Accordingly, it is urged that the order
taking cognizance in Complaint Case (PMLA) No.61 of 2018 is liable
to be quashed qua both Petitioners.
5. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement
Directorate, vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing and submits
that the impugned order of cognizance dated 25.09.2018 has been
passed on the basis of sufficient material demonstrating the Petitioners'
involvement in processes connected with the proceeds of crime. He
submits that the contention of the Petitioners that cognizance in the
predicate offence was quashed in CRLMC No.3068 of 2019 qua
Trilochan Mishra does not render the PMLA proceedings non est, for
the simple reason that the scheduled offence continues to subsist in
respect of other accused persons including Petitioner-Biranchi Narayan
Mishra, and multiple FIRs forming the basis of the scheduled offences
have been forwarded to the Enforcement Directorate. Therefore, the
scheduled offences have not been extinguished in their entirety. He
further submits that the judgment in CRLMC No.3068 of 2019 does not
amount to a declaration that no scheduled offence survives; rather, it
was a fact-specific exercise relating only to the cognizance taken qua
Trilochan. The PMLA is a standalone statute, and once the ECIR is
registered based on credible information relating to scheduled offences,
the subsequent investigation into concealment, possession or projection
of proceeds of crime becomes independent of the fate of individual
accused persons in the predicate crime.
Drawing attention to large-scale property transactions running
into several years and involving land parcels of substantial value, Mr.
Agarwal submits that the materials collected by the ED disclose
layering, movement, transfer and integration of properties far beyond a
mere civil dispute regarding a sale deed. He contends that the pattern
and volume of transactions give rise to a strong prima facie inference
that the Petitioners were knowingly involved in activities connected
with proceeds of crime, attracting Section 3 of the PMLA. He relies on
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pavana
Dibbur vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 158 to contend that a person need not be an accused in the
scheduled offence to be prosecuted under the PMLA; it is sufficient if
the scheduled offence survives in law and if the materials indicate the
accused's involvement in subsequent handling of illicit property. He
further submits that courts have consistently held that the offence of
money-laundering is a continuing offence, and that the quashing of
cognizance qua one individual does not extinguish laundering activity
which continues independently. It is thus urged that the Petitioners have
failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, perversity or abuse of
process in the order of cognizance, and therefore no case for
interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out.
6. Mr. S. Nayak, learned Special P.P. for the CBI supports the
submissions advanced by the Enforcement Directorate and contends
that the scheduled offence underlying Complaint Case (PMLA) No.61
of 2018 cannot be said to have been extinguished merely because
cognizance in G.R. Case No.258 of 2015 was quashed qua one of the
accused persons, namely Petitioner-Trilochan Mishra, in CRLMC
No.3068 of 2019. It is submitted that the investigation into Chhatrapur
P.S. Case No.119 of 2015 revealed a series of transactions involving
manipulation of land records, fraudulent alienation of immovable
properties and criminal conspiracy, in which several individuals
including Petitioner-Biranchi Narayan Mishra are still facing
allegations, and the proceedings in respect of such accused persons
continue to remain valid in law. The CBI submits that the scheduled
offence, being the jurisdictional trigger for initiation of PMLA
proceedings, survives so long as the criminal activity alleged in the
underlying FIR has not been set aside in its entirety. The quashing of
cognizance qua one accused does not erase the factual allegations or the
criminal conduct attributed to others. Therefore, the materials
forwarded to the Enforcement Directorate legitimately enabled the ED
to register an ECIR and investigate the subsequent financial and
property transactions which appeared to constitute proceeds of crime.
It is further contended that the voluminous land transactions and
the extensive transfer of properties, running into several acres and
spanning multiple years, prima facie disclose a pattern consistent with
the generation and circulation of illicit assets. According to the CBI,
these transactions cannot be characterised as mere civil disputes, and
the materials collected during investigation establish sufficient
foundational facts for the Special Court to take cognizance under the
PMLA. The CBI therefore urges that the order of cognizance dated
25.09.2018 does not suffer from any infirmity or lack of jurisdiction,
and that the Petitioners have failed to make out any case for exercise of
the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Having considered the rival submissions and examined the
materials placed before this Court, it is evident that the issues raised in
these CRLMCs stand substantially covered by the reasoning already
rendered in CRLREV No.119 of 2023, vide final order dated
21.11.2025. In the said Revision, this Court has comprehensively dealt
with the statutory scheme of the PMLA, the concept of "proceeds of
crime" under Section 2(1)(u), the requirement of a subsisting scheduled
offence, and the effect of quashing cognizance in a predicate case. It
has also been clarified that the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is
a standalone and continuing offence and that its prosecution does not
come to an automatic end merely because cognizance in respect of one
accused in the scheduled offence has been quashed.
8. The primary submission of the Petitioners herein hinges upon
the order of the coordinate Bench in CRLMC No.3068 of 2019,
whereby cognizance in the predicate G.R. Case was quashed qua
Petitioner-Trilochan Mishra. However, this Court is unable to accept
the argument that the said order renders the present cognizance under
the PMLA non est. The reasoning in CRLMC No.3068 of 2019 was
confined entirely to the role of Petitioner-Trilochan Mishra and was
rendered on a person-specific factual foundation. The Co-ordinate
Bench did not declare that the scheduled offence had ceased to exist in
its entirety, nor did it adjudicate upon the involvement of any other
accused persons. The allegations against Petitioner-Biranchi Narayan
Mishra and other individuals continue to survive in law, and the
scheduled offence remains intact for the purpose of PMLA
proceedings. Therefore, the order in CRLMC No.3068 of 2019 cannot
be repositioned into the present context, nor can it be construed as
extinguishing the predicate offence so as to invalidate the cognizance
taken under the PMLA.
9. Furthermore, as noted in the said CRLREV, the materials
collected during investigation reveal a voluminous chain of land
transactions spanning several years and involving large tracts of
immovable property of substantial value. These transactions, taken
cumulatively, indicate a pattern warranting examination of whether the
properties constitute "proceeds of crime" or are involved in any of the
processes contemplated under Section 3. At the stage of taking
cognizance, the Special Court is only required to ascertain whether a
prima facie case exists; it is not the function of this Court in its inherent
jurisdiction to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or to
evaluate the probable defences of the accused. It also bears reiteration
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate of
Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 158, has clarified that
proceedings under the PMLA may continue so long as the scheduled
offence survives in law and that a person may be prosecuted for money-
laundering even if he is not an accused in the predicate case. The
converse is equally true: quashing cognizance qua one individual does
not, by itself, extinguish the scheduled offence or dissolve the
jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate.
10. In view of the above, and applying mutatis mutandis the
principles already recorded in CRLREV No.119 of 2023, this Court is
satisfied that the order of cognizance dated 25.09.2018 does not suffer
from any legal infirmity. No case for interference under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is made out, and the present CRLMCs merit rejection. Hence,
disposed of.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Bijay
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Nov-2025 16:25:10
