As per the case facts, an appeal challenged a High Court judgment that upheld proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The appellant argued that the PMLA prosecution ... was unsustainable because the underlying scheduled offense's FIR had been closed due to lack of evidence. The High Court, however, viewed the money laundering offense as independent despite requiring a scheduled offense as a precondition. The question arose whether PMLA prosecution can continue when the FIR for the scheduled offense is closed for lack of evidence, and if the money laundering offense is truly independent under such circumstances. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reversed the High Court's decision. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the PMLA offense beyond reasonable doubt, especially given the lack of evidence for the scheduled offense. Relying on its own precedents, the Supreme Court concluded that the chances of proving the PMLA allegations were bleak, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.