Rakesh Brijlal Jain and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that once it is established that there is no cheating involved under the IPC then there is no proceeds of crime involved u/s. 2(1)(u) of PMLA and therefore there is no Money Laundering involved under Section 3 of PMLA in the present case.
Facts- This Criminal Revision Application No.379 of 2016 challenges legality and validity of the impugned order dated 08.08.2014, issuing process passed by the learned Special Judge, Mumbai under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and seeks setting aside of the said order, principally on the ground that prima facie no offence whatsoever is made out under Sections 406, 418, 420 read with 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 from the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, the FIR filed, the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation, the chargesheet filed by prosecution M.E.C.R No. 12 of 2009 and and Criminal Case No. 04. of 2014 filed in the Special Court.
Conclusion- Held that Complainant has clearly sought to convert a clear civil dispute between parties pertaining to mutual written contract into a criminal case. Complainant has not been deprived of his property. He has received his property along with additional amenities under the Agreements, hence invoking a criminal case is a sheer abuse of the due process of law and the legal system. A mere breach of promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust without there being a clear case of entrustment – Clearly, the allegation / charge under Section 406 of the IPC has no basis. Once it is established that there is no cheating involved under the IPC then there is no proceeds of crime involved under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA and therefore there is no Money Laundering involved under Section 3 of PMLA in the present case.
