Person against whom offence u/s. 3 of PMLA is alleged need not be shown as accused in scheduled offence

Pavana Dibbur Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Supreme Court of India)

Supreme Court held that it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence.

Facts-

The respondent–the Directorate of Enforcement, filed a complaint under the second proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before the Special Court for PMLA Cases at Bengaluru. The appellant–Pavana Dibbur was shown as accused no.6 in the said complaint. By the order dated 17^th March 2022, the Special Court took cognisance of the said complaint. The appellant filed a petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking the relief of quashing of the said complaint. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27^th September 2022, the petition for quashing the complaint has been dismissed.

For a period of five years, i.e. from 2010 to 2015, the appellant’s husband–Dr. Ayyappa Dore, was the Vice Chancellors of the Alliance University. The appellant also acted as the Vice­ Chancellor of the Alliance University for a brief period. On 11^th November 2017, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered on the complaint of the Registrar of the Alliance University against accused no.1–Madhukar Angur, alleging that he collected a sum of Rs.107 crores from the students by claiming himself as the Chancellor of the Alliance University. The allegation was that he collected the said amount between January 2017 and November 2017, which was deposited in the account of Srivari Education Services. Subsequently, crores of rupees were transferred to the account of the accused no.1.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.