2026:MHC:921Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 09.12.2025

DELIVERED ON : 05.03.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.5200 and 6763 of 2019

M/s.R.R.Granites

rep. by its Partner P.Rajasekaran,

S/o.A.M.Pitchai

No.10, 1

st

Street,

Deputy Collector Colony, K.K.Nagar,

Madurai-625 020.

Petitioner

Vs

Directorate of Enforcement,

rep. by the Deputy Director,

(The Prevention of Money Laundering

Act, 2002)

Government of India,

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,

2

nd

& 3

rd

Floor, C Block,

Murugesa Naicker Complex,

84, Greams Road, Thousand Lights,

Chennai-600 006.

Respondent

______________

Page 1 of 54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records

relating to the complaint in C.C.No.9 of 2018 filed before the Principal

District Judge at Madurai (The Special Court constituted u/s.43(1) of

the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) now pending on the

file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and the

consequential summon dated 21.12.2018 issued by the II Additional

District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and quash the same so far as the

petitioner/4th accused is concerned.

For Petitioner: Mr.Richardson Wilson

for M/s.P.Wilson Associates

For Respondent: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan

Addl. Solicitor General of India

assisted by

Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil

Spl. PP (ED Cases)

ORDER

G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records

relating to the complaint in C.C.No.9 of 2018 filed before the Principal

District Judge at Madurai (The Special Court constituted u/s.43(1) of

the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002), now pending on the

______________

Page 2 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and the

consequential summon dated 21.12.2018 issued by the II Additional

District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and quash the same so far as the

petitioner/4th accused is concerned.

2. Records show that, earlier, the petition was heard by a

Division Bench of this Court and, by order dated 8.2.2021, the Division

Bench allowed the petition and quashed the proceeding in C.C.No.9 of

2018 and the consequential summon dated 21.12.2018.

3. Challenging the said order, the respondent herein filed

Criminal Appeal Nos.110-112 of 2022. By order dated 21.1.2022, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order dated 8.2.2021 and

remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration on merits

and in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while

remanding the matter, directed the parties to appear before the High

Court on 1.2.2022, when the High Court may proceed to hear the

remanded matter on that day itself or assign a suitable date as may be

convenient to it, while ensuring that the remanded proceedings are

disposed of expeditiously.

______________

Page 3 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

4. The matter was taken up by the roster Bench on 3.2.2022

and at the request of both sides, adjourned to 22.2.2022. On

22.2.2022, at the request of both sides, the matter was adjourned to

7.3.2022. Thereafter, the matter was not listed and when the matter

was listed before us for the first time on 21.11.2025, we have directed

the office to prepare a paper book containing the pleadings of the

parties and directed to list it on 8.12.2025. On 8.12.2025, the matter

was adjourned to 9.12.2025 and on 9.12.2025, the matter was fully

heard and reserved for orders.

5.1. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this petition,

are that the petitioner was doing quarrying business with the partners,

namely (i) P.Rajasekaran; (ii) C.Rabeek Raja; (iii) Ravindra Babu; (iv)

Periyakaruppan, and all the partners were effectively participating and

doing the business. The petitioner purchased a property to do

quarrying business by way of a registered sale deed dated 31.1.2000

from Bannari Amman Sugars Limited admeasuring an extent of 10.28

Acres comprised in various survey numbers. The vendor, namely,

Bannari Amman Sugars Limited (Granite Division), Coimbatore had

obtained two granite mining leases from Government of Tamil Nadu in

the year 1993 and it operated the quarry by entering into agreement

______________

Page 4 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

for excavation of granite blocks with AAR KAY PEE Granites, Tirupattur.

Subsequently, due to some reasons, the company decided to sell

outright the granite quarry and the petitioner purchased the same on

31.01.2000 at a cost of Rs.7,00,000/- through a registered sale deed.

5.2. Pursuant thereto, in the year 2000, Bannari Amman Sugars

Limited made an application on 28.7.2000 to the Government through

the District Collector, Madurai, and requested to transfer the lease

granted to them in favour of the petitioner. In response, the

Government accorded consent by way of government order on

27.2.2001 for transfer of quarry lease for quarrying multi-coloured

granite over an extent of 0.26.0 hectare in Survey Nos.211/4B and

211/4C for the remaining period. Likewise, the Government had also

accorded consent for the transfer of quarry lease for quarrying multi-

coloured granite over an extent of 3.76.0 hectares to the petitioner in

various survey numbers.

5.3. On the basis of the aforesaid two government orders,

Bannarai Amman Sugars Limited handed over the quarry to the

petitioner after completing the process of transferring the lease in the

name of the petitioner and the petitioner had also commenced its

______________

Page 5 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

quarrying activities only after transfer, namely in the year 2001.

Subsequent to the date of transfer in favour of the petitioner, the

existing mining lease period came to an end in the year 2003 and,

thereafter, the petitioner approached the Department and got the said

mining lease renewed on 5.5.2004 only in respect of 3.76.0 hectares

and lease deed was also executed with the District Collector on

27.6.2004 and the petitioner carried on mining operations till

31.3.2008. No quarrying operations were done in respect of 0.26.0

hectares and thereafter no mining activities took place and only the

activities of dressing of granite excavated already into blocks,

marketing and transportation of blocks with valid transport permits

took place from 2008 up to 31.3.2012.

5.4. While things stood thus, the respondent, through its

provisional attachment order dated 30.10.2017, attached the property

belonging to the petitioner on the ground that the said property is the

proceeds of crime and that it is involved in the act of money

laundering. The basis for attachment is F.I.R.No.183 of 2012 and the

evaluation report quantified the loss as Rs.46.53 Crores. Subsequently,

a complaint before the adjudicating authority was filed by the

respondent on 14.11.2017 and the order of provisional attachment

______________

Page 6 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

dated 30.10.2017 was confirmed on 17.4.2018. The petitioner was

issued impugned summon to the effect that it has been implicated

under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA) and a

complaint has been filed before the Special Court constituted under

Section 43(1) of the PMLA in C.C.No.9 of 2018 in ECIR No.3 of 2014.

5.5. Aggrieved by the said complaint and summon, the petitioner

has filed the present petition seeking to quash the same, inter alia, on

the following grounds:

(a) The complaint claiming that the commission of

offence is in the year 2001 is in violation of Article

20(1) of the Constitution of India.

(b) The trial court ought not to have entertained the

complaint and issued summons to the petitioner.

(c) The complaint has been filed against RR Granites,

represented by one Partner P.Rajasekaran. As per

Indian Partneship Act, RR Granites has no legal

existence and hence, the complaint against the firm is

not maintainable.

(d) The petitioner is shown to be presented by a single

Partner, which is factually incorrect. The business of

______________

Page 7 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

the petitioner firm was carried out effectively by all

Partners. As per Section 25 of the Indian Partnership

Act, the complaint is not maintainable.

(e) The petitioner has acquired only one property in the

year 2000 and even according to the complaint the

alleged date of commission of offence is from 2001 to

2012. Hence, at no stretch of imagination committing

schedule offence to acquire crime proceeds is made

out.

(f) The trial court failed to consider that even if the

allegations made in the complaint are taken at the face

value in its entirety, this will not constitute any offence

under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

(g) The trial court failed to consider that the materials

collected by the respondent are on the basis of

assumption of a non-existent property said to have

been acquired by the petitioner on 29.6.2004. Only in

the year 2009, schedule offences were amended and

were included in the Act. Therefore, without admitting

that it is a non-existing property even otherwise it does

not disclose the commission of offence and make out

any case against the petitioner.

(h) The court concerned has not recorded its

______________

Page 8 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

satisfaction about the commission of offences before

issuance of process.

(i) The complaint contains misleading statements,

documents and reports and the complaint based on the

above documents amounts to overreaching the

proceedings in W.P.No.16841 of 2014.

(j) The complaint of the respondent refers to the

evaluation report which report has been discarded by

the Government and the Chief Secretary of the State

has gone on affidavit claiming that they are not relying

upon the documents and that they are approaching the

Indian Bureau of Mines and Geological Survey of India

to give their views on these reports of inspection by

evaluation team and recovery of evaluation percentage

for taking further course of action. Without authentic

stand of the State Government, the respondent cannot

expect the court to act upon a document discarded by

the Government and claim it to be gospel of truth.

Such conduct of the respondent amounts to perjury.

(k) The trial court ought to have considered that there

is no offence made out even going by the admitted

document which is filed before it and ought not to have

taken cognizance of the private complaint filed by the

respondent under Section 45(1) read with Section 3, 4

______________

Page 9 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

and 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

(l) The trial court ought to have seen the procedure

that is contemplated for a private complaint as set out

in Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and ought not to have issued

process, as there is no ground for proceeding with the

complaint and no offence has been made out.

(m) The Special Court has not applied its mind and not

recorded the reasons before issue of process and

taking cognizance of the offences and, hence, issuance

of summons stands vitiated.

(n) Conducting trial for the offences registered by the

police in one Court and conducting trial for the offences

under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in

another Special Court is highly deprecated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and both the cases should be

tried together.

6.1. Resisting the petition, the respondent filed counter-affidavit,

inter alia, stating that based on the complaints given by the Village

Administrative Officers of Keezhiyur, Sarugu Valayapatti i/c

Keelavalavu, E.Malampatti, Thiruvadhavur, five FIRs, bearing

Nos.156/2012, 19/2015, 166/2012, 183/2012 and 397/2012, were

______________

Page 10 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

registered by Madurai District Police and final reports have been filed

in all the above cases, except in FIR No.19/2015 before the

jurisdictional Magistrate for the offences committed under Sections

120B, 304, 447, 379, 420 434, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 109,

114, 511 IPC and Section 3(i), (ii) and (iii) of TNPPDL Act and Section

6 read with Section 3(a) and 4(a) of Explosive Substance Act against

the accused persons, namely C.Panneer Mohamed, C.Rabeek Raja and

others and their proprietary/partnership companies, viz. Madurai

Granite Exports, MR Granites, RR Granitesothers, were interconnected

and involved in the illegal mining activity.

6.2. It is further stated that, in the said final reports it is

recorded that they had obtained quarry license and were running

granite quarry business and that all the accused unlawfully assembled

and acted together in Melur, Keelavalavu, Madurai, Rasipuram and

other places with a common object to trespass into the nearby areas

of Government’s rocky poramboke land and carried out mining works

by using deadly explosive substances to misappropriate the multi-

coloured granite stones in an illegal manner during the period prior to

and between 2001 to 2012 and that they made the Government to

believe that mining was done only in the licenced place, but quarried

______________

Page 11 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

at non-licensed Government land also. By selling the illegally dug

multi-coloured granite stone, they caused loss to the Government

exchequer and gained huge profit. Without leaving a gap as stated in

the government orders, they carried out mining work by using

explosive substances in an illegal manner and caused huge loss to the

Government to the extent of Rs.449.55 Crores and correspondingly

enriched themselves. The final report states that there is a prima

facie case for continuing investigations under the PMLA.

6.3. It is stated that the quarry of RR Granites, a partnership

company of P.Rajasekaran and C.Rabeek Raja, an accused company in

FIR No.183 of 2012 at Survey Nos.209/3F, 209/4A, 209/4B2, 209/4B3,

209/4B4, 209/4B5, 211/3, 211/4A, 213/1, 213/3, 213/4A, 213/9A,

213/9B, 215/10, 215/11A, 215/11C, 216/7A2, 216/9B of Malampatti

Village to the extent of 3.76.0 hectares was inspected by a team led

by the Assistant Director, Geology and Mining and Deputy Director,

Geology and Mining, Chennai, wherein they noticed and reported

various general violations and submitted a report stating that the

petitioner has indulged in illicit quarrying of granite to the tune of

23262.59 M³.

______________

Page 12 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

6.4. It is also stated that, from the investigation, it is clearly

evident that the persons accused in the final reports have committed

scheduled offences as defined under Section 2(1)(x) read with 2(1)(y)

of the PMLA in the illegal quarrying of granite slabs/blocks and trading

of the same and have caused wrongful loss to the Government

exchequer. By committing the said scheduled offences, the accused

persons subsequent to the gaining of wrongful loss in each of the said

mining lease agreements, sold the granites in the international/

domestic market in excess of the declared quantity and realised the

sale proceeds. Further, the pecuniary benefits obtained illegally by the

accused persons were re-invested in acquisition of the immovable

properties in their own names and in the names of their family

members as well as in mining lease licenses in the name of the

proprietary companies owned by them, thereby resulting in additional

accruals.

6.5. It is averred that the accused persons have also filed

income tax returns, wherein they had chosen to declare some of the

immovable properties held in their respective names and the names of

their family members, however, they had not declared their entire

______________

Page 13 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

properties and their respective value as per the records. The persons

named in the FIRs used the proceeds of crime in acquisition of the

assets in the form of 511 immovable properties in the names of

accused persons and their family members.

6.6. It is further stated that on the basis of materials in

possession and after having perused the documents available on

record, the respondent had reasons to believe that in the case under

the PMLA, the part of the proceeds of crime, have been

projected/claimed “as untainted” by way of transforming them into the

form of immovable properties along with buildings/structures and

investment in business and showing it as legally acquired, as such they

are involved in the act of money laundering. Hence, the immovable

properties acquired and held in the name of accused persons are

properties involved in money laundering and are liable for attachment

under Section 5(1) of the PMLA and further adjudication and

confiscation in terms of Section 8 of the PMLA. It is stated that the

complainant had reasons to believe that if the said immovable

properties are not attached immediately under the Act, the non-

attachment of such properties is likely to frustrate any further

proceedings under the PMLA. Therefore, a provisional attachment

______________

Page 14 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

order dated 30.10.2017 was issued by the respondent attaching the

immovable properties which includes the quarry lands along with

structures therein, available. Subsequently, a complaint before the

adjudicating authority has been filed on 14.11.2017 by the

complainant and the adjudicating authority after hearing both sides,

had confirmed the provisional attachment vide its order dated

17.4.2018.

6.7. It is further asserted that a prosecution complaint in

C.C.No.9 of 2018 has been filed against the Panneer Mohammed and

14 others before the Principal District Judge at Madurai and the case

has been transferred to the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases

and the Special Court had issued summons dated 21.12.2018 to all the

parties for their appearance on 18.1.2019. The summons were served

and all the accused appeared on 18.1.2019 and the trial is in progress.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

predicate offence in FIR No.156 of 2012 has been registered by the

District Crime Branch for the offences punishable under IPC, Tamil

Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, Mines and

______________

Page 15 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and Explosive Substances

Act. He would submit that the offences under the Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Act are not scheduled offences under

the PMLA and the offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances

Act is a scheduled offence and in so far as IPC offences are concerned,

Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC are scheduled offences.

7.2. He hastened to add that the petitioner is not an accused in

FIR No.156 of 2012. The complaint states that after the registration of

ECIR on the basis of the FIR No.156 of 2012, the respondent came to

know during preliminary verification that there were four more FIRs

registered in Madurai District pertaining to firms where C.Paneer

Mohammed, C.Rabeek Raja and others were partners and these FIRs

were FIR Nos.166 of 2012, 183 of 2012, 397 of 2013 and 19 of 2015.

The firms in which C.Paneer Mohammed and Ravi Raja were partners

are Madurai Granites Exports, MR Granites and RR Granites. RR

Granites is an accused only in FIR No.183 of 2012, which was

registered on 29.8.2012. The allegation in the said FIR is that the

accused has indulged in illegal quarrying in Survey No.209/3F, spread

across 9.29 acres, which led to a loss to the Government.

______________

Page 16 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

7.3. Taking us through the complaint, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the complaint is vague and throughout the

body of the complaint, the respondent has not stated what is the

proceeds of crime obtained, acquired, used or concealed by the

petitioner pursuant to the alleged illegal mining. In fact, there are only

two paragraphs which talk about the role of the petitioner, which are

paragraph 4.5.3 and 4.6.16. According to the learned counsel, the

said paragraphs do not meet the requirement of a complaint alleging

the commission of an offence under the PMLA. In fact, paragraph

4.5.3 merely reproduces a report of the Assistant Director, Geology

and Mines, which quantified the so-called volume of granite illegally

transported from the leasehold area and its value. This allegation does

not ipso facto lead to an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA.

7.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that for an offence

under the PMLA, there has to be further allegation by the respondent.

For example, the respondent must allege that this 23,262 M ³ of

illegally mined granite has been retained by the petitioner in such and

such place between such and such time or the respondent has to state

that 23,262 M³ was sold by the petitioner to some persons, out of

which, the petitioner earned a sum, which is held by the petitioner

______________

Page 17 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

either in the form of cash or property and the respondent has to give

the details of such property as well. Simply stating that illegal mining

has been done by the petitioner does not constitute an offence under

the PMLA, which is focused only on the proceeds of the crime and not

the crime itself.

7.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

petitioner’s role is also mentioned in paragraph 10.4. As per the

version of the respondent, the offence committed by the petitioner is

the acquisition of property, where the alleged illegal mining was done.

The respondent incorrectly noted in paragraph 10.4 that the

acquisition of the property was by Document No.2111 of 2004, dated

29.6.2004. In fact, the said document is the lease deed for mining

and not the sale deed. The purchase of the property is on 31.1.2000,

much prior to the date of commission of the illegal mining, which,

according to the respondent and the predicate FIR, is 2001 to 2012.

Therefore, when the property itself has been purchased prior to the

so-called commission of the crime of illegal mining, there is no logic in

terming the acquisition of the property as one through proceeds of

crime. As on the date of acquisition of the property, i.e. 31.1.2000,

the crime has not even taken place even as per the complaint of the

______________

Page 18 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

respondent. Since the complaint does not disclose the commission of

any offence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of

the complaint in C.C.No.9 of 2018 and the consequential summons

issued by the Special Court. To fortify his submissions, learned counsel

for the petitioner relied upon and referred to the following decisions:

(i) Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India

and others

1

.

(ii) Satish Mehra v. State (NCT of Delhi)

2

.

(iii) Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and

others

3

.

(iv) Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and

others

4

.

(v) Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others

5

.

(vi) Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT of Delhi

and others

6

.

(vii) Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another

7

.

(viii) Thesima Begam and another v. State of Tamil Nadu

and others

8

.

(ix) Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and another v. State

of Gujarat and others

9

.

1

2022 SCC OnLine SC 929

2

2012 SCC OnLine SC 956

3

2006 SCC OnLine SC 747

4

2015 SCC OnLIne SC 320

5

2025 SCC OnLine SC 17

6

MANU/SC/1438/2024

7

2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060

8

(2020) 14 SCC 580

9

2024 SCC OnLine SC 5569

______________

Page 19 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

8.1. Refuting the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for

the respondent would submit that the present petition is not

maintainable in law and devoid of merits, inasmuch as the subject

property is involved in money laundering and has been taken

possession by the respondent under the provisions of Section 8(4) of

the PMLA and liable for confiscation, for which a prosecution complaint

has been filed before the Special Court and is under trial. The

property attached vide provisional attachment order dated 17.4.2018

which was registered under Document No.2111 of 2004 is nothing but

property registered vide sale deed dated 31.1.2000 under Document

No.167 of 2000 between RR Granites represented by one of its

Managing Partner P.Rajasekaran, 4

th

accused in C.C.No.9 of 2018 and

Bannari Amman Sugars Limited.

8.2. He would further submit that actually Document No.2111 of

2004 is a lease agreement dated 29.6.2004 between Madurai Collector

and RR Granites, represented by R.Rajasekaran admeasuring 3.76.0

hectares for mining granite in Survey Nos.209/3F, 209/4A, 209/4B2,

209/4B3, 209/4B4, 209/4B5, 211/3, 211/4A, 213/1 213/3, 213/4A,

______________

Page 20 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

213/9A, 233/9B, 215/10, 215/11A, 215/11C, 216/7A2 and 216/9B

located at Malampatti Village. The lands located in these survey

numbers are the same as that of the sale deed dated 31.1.2000

except Survey Nos.209/3A, 209/3C, 209/4B. 209/4C. This land is

nothing but the land in dispute used for illegal mining activity as

mentioned in FIR No.183 of 2012 registered against RR Granites and

its partners.

8.3. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India also submitted

that the interpretation of the petitioner has no relevance in the subject

issue. In fact, P.Rajasekaran executed the lease deed dated 29.6.2004

as a Managing Partner of RR Granites, where Rabeek Raja is also one

of the partners. FIR No.183 of 2012 is one of the five FIRs registered

by Madurai District Police, where the accused were Paneer Mohammed,

Rabeek Raja, their relatives and other partners in their partnership

firms. All the above FIRs are inter-connected to each other. Madurai

Police have registered cases with different Police Stations of Madurai

District and filed final reports in all the five FIRs except FIR No.19 of

2015. Paneer Mohammed and Rabeek Raja have either directly or

indirectly controlled all the affairs through their proprietary or

partnership concerns, namely Madurai Granites Exports, MR Granites

______________

Page 21 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

and RR Granites and other individuals as mentioned in C.C.No.9 of

2018.

8.4. As these are inter-connected FIRs and the accused involved

in the crime are known to each other since long and all of them

involved in the conspiracy of diverting the proceeds of crime, learned

Additional Solicitor General submits that no separate ECIR needs to be

registered against each individual involved in crimes registered in five

different FIRs. Further, in FIR No.183 of 2012, Rajasekaran is accused

No.2; Rabeek Raja is accused No.3, who met the other accused on

various dates at various places and conspired illegally to trespass into

the Government poramboke land adjacent to the licenced quarry land

located at Survey No.210 and into the Government land in Survey

No.209/2.

8.5. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India then submitted

that the provisions of Section 3 of the PMLA define what amounts to

offence of money laundering. Even the persons, whosoever directly or

indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly is a

party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with

proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or

______________

Page 22 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property, shall be guilty

of offence of money laundering. The alleged period of commission of

crime is between 2001 to 2012. This is evident from the sale deed

executed between RR Granites and Bannari Amman Sugars Limited

and the subsequent consent accorded by the Government for transfer

of lease for quarrying multi-coloured granite over an extent of 3.76.0

hectares to RR Granites from Bannari Amman Sugars Limited and

further lease agreement dated 29.6.2004.

8.6. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India urged that it

cannot be said that to launch prosecution of an offence under Section

3 of the PMLA, the predicate offence from which proceeds of the crime

originated should also have been committed after the PMLA came into

force. It is the laundering aspect of the proceeds of crime, which is

mischief, that the PMLA targets. Section 3 of the PMLA criminalises

the possession/conversion of tainted proceeds of crime and not the

generation of proceeds of crime from the predicate offence. Therefore,

if the predicate offence is committed prior to the PMLA came into

force, it cannot be said that Section 3 of the PMLA is retrospective in

operation. Since the property mentioned in the two documents,

namely lease deed and the sale deed, was used to generate proceeds

______________

Page 23 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

of crime by illegal mining activity and possessed by RR Granites,

where Rajasekaran is Managing Partner, it was attached by the

impugned provisional attachment order dated 30.10.2017 and

confirmed by the adjudicating authority under order dated 17.4.2018.

Since the complaint contains specific allegation against the petitioner

and more particularly paragraph 4.5.3 of the complaint constitutes

ingredients of the offence and reading the contents of paragraph 10.4

along with the other allegations, the offences alleged against the

petitioner have been made out by the respondent. Therefore, there is

no necessity to interfere with the same. He, therefore, prayed for

dismissal of the petition.

8.7. To bolster his arguments, the learned Additional Solicitor

General relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Union of

India

10

.

(ii) Y.Balaji v. Karthik Desari and others

11

.

(iii) Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of

Enforcement and others

12

.

10

2022 SCC OnLine SC 929

11

MANU/SC/0584/2023

12

MANU/SC/0343/2025

______________

Page 24 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the

records.

10. The bone contention of the petitioner is that the allegations

set out by the respondent in the complaint in C.C.No.9 of 2018 do not

disclose commission of any offence by the petitioner under the PMLA.

Further, a complaint to the Magistrate seeking cognizance of criminal

offences must set out clearly the allegations against the accused

persons, which includes the time, place, nature of commission of

offence and contain clear material facts and particulars as to the

offence committed by the accused persons. Under the Scheme of

PMLA, the Enforcement Directorate, registers an ECIR upon receipt of

information of commission of an offence under the PMLA. Though in

Vijay Madanlal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ECIR

is not equal to an FIR inasmuch as it is not a public record and need

not be furnished to the accused, still the initiation of investigation by

the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA begins with the

registration of an ECIR. Thereafter, the Enforcement Directorate

investigates the matter and after its investigation, if it finds that an

offence has been committed under the PMLA, the Enforcement

Directorate is empowered to file a complaint before the Special Court

______________

Page 25 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

designated under Section 45(1) of PMLA setting out the offences

committed by the accused persons. In the case on hand, the

respondent has not stated material facts and allegations against the

petitioner in the complaint, which, if taken to be true, would result

in the conviction of the petitioner. In the instant case, no trial can

be held on the basis of this complaint against the petitioner.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on

many decisions to contend that the High Court shall exercise its power

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings, even if the

averments in the complaint is accepted in entirety, do not disclose

commission of any offence and the continuance of the proceedings

would be an abuse of process of law. There is no quarrel in respect of

that proposition and it has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp

(1) SCC 335, that if the case falls in anyone of the categories, then the

High Court could intervene and quash the proceedings, as it amounts

to abuse of process of law.

______________

Page 26 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

12. The primordial contention in seeking to quash the complaint

is that the petitioner has purchased the property, measuring 3.76.0

hectares of land in Malampatti Village, Melur Taluk on 31.01.2000 from

one Bannari Amman Sugars. Only thereafter pursuant to the

application filed, the government, by order dated 27.02.2001 granted

the transfer of quarry lease from Bannari Amman Sugars to the

petitioner through two government orders. The petitioner got the

mining lease renewed on 29.06.2004 and carried out mining

operations. Since the period of illegality mentioned in the predicate

offence is between 2001 to 2012 and the property having been

acquired prior to the said period in 2000 itself, the acquisition of this

property cannot be a proceeds of crime and therefore, the very

implication of the petitioner as an accused in the complaint is not

maintainable as it does not fall under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act. As

such, even if the averments in the complaint are accepted in entirety,

the same does not disclose any offence committed by the petitioner

under the PMLA and therefore the continuance of the proceedings

would be an abuse of process of law and it has to be quashed.

______________

Page 27 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

13. Though at first blush, the argument raised seems appealing,

as the sale deed pertaining to the property standing in the name of the

petitioner is dated 31.01.2000, which is admittedly prior to the period

mentioned in the predicate offence, a close look at the averments in

the complaint, details furnished and the statutory provisions, reveals

altogether a different picture.

14. For better understanding, the relevant provisions in the PMLA

are extracted hereunder;

“Section 2(1)(u) - “proceeds of crime” means any property

derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a

result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the

value of any such property [or where such property is taken or

held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value

held within the country [or abroad]].

[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified

that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or

obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which

may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of

any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;]

Section 2(1)((v) - “property” means any property or assets of

every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or

immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and

instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or

assets, wherever located.

______________

Page 28 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified

that the term “property” includes property of any kind used in

the commission of an offence under this Act or any of the

scheduled offences;]

Section 2(1)(y) - “scheduled offence” means - (i) the offences

specified under Part A of the Schedule; or [(ii) the offences

specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved

in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or (iii) the

offences specified under Part C of the Schedule]

Section 3. Offence of money-laundering. - Whosoever

directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or

knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or

activity connected with the [proceeds of crime including its

concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or

claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of

money-laundering.

[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified

that,— (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-

laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly

attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a

party or is actually involved in one or more of the following

processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime,

namely:—

(a) concealment; or

(b) possession; or

(c) acquisition; or

(d) use; or

(e) projecting as untainted property; or

(f) claiming as untainted property,

in any manner whatsoever;

______________

Page 29 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

(ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a

continuing activity and continues till such time a person is

directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its

concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it

as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any

manner whatsoever.]

Section 4. Punishment for money-laundering .- Whoever

commits the offence of money-laundering shall be punishable

with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less

than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall

also be liable to fine [***]:

Provided that where the proceeds of crime involved in money-

laundering relates to any offence specified under paragraph 2 of

Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of this section shall have

effect as if for the words “which may extend to seven years”, the

words “which may extend to ten years” had been substituted.

15. Section 2(1)(u) defines "proceeds of crime" that any

property, derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a

result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value

of any such property is proceeds of crime. By Act 23 of 2019,

explanation was inserted clarifying that the ‘proceeds of crime’ not

only include the property derived or obtained from the scheduled

offence but also as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the

scheduled offence.

______________

Page 30 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

16. As per Section 2(1)(v), the property means movable or

immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments

evidencing title or interest.

17. As per Section 3, any person directly or indirectly attempts

to indulge, or is actually involved in any process or activity connected

with the "proceeds of crime" which includes concealment, possession,

acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property

shall be guilty of an offence of money-laundering.

18. As per explanation inserted by the Act 23 of 2019, it has

been clarified that the ‘proceeds of crime’ is a continuing activity and

continues till such time a person enjoys the proceeds of crime by

concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as

untainted property in any manner whatsoever.

19. Section 4 prescribes the punishment for committing an

offence under Section 3.

______________

Page 31 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal

Choudhary v. Union of India [(2023) 12 SCC 1] held that the property

in whatever form mentioned in Section 2(1)(v), is or can be linked to

criminal activity relating to or relatable to scheduled offence, must be

regarded as proceeds of crime for the purpose of the 2002 Act. To be

proceeds of crime, the property must be derived or obtained, directly

or indirectly, “as a result of” criminal activity relating to a scheduled

offence.

21. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision, is extracted

as under;

“105. The other relevant definition is “proceeds of crime”

in Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act. This definition is common to

all actions under the Act, namely, attachment, adjudication and

confiscation being civil in nature as well as prosecution or

criminal action. The original provision prior to amendment vide

the Finance Act, 2015 and Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, took within

its sweep any property [mentioned in Section 2(1)( v) PMLA]

derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person “as a

result of” criminal activity “relating to” a scheduled offence

[mentioned in Section 2(1)(y) read with Schedule to the Act] or

the value of any such property. Vide the Finance Act, 2015, it

further included such property (being proceeds of crime) which is

taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent

______________

Page 32 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

in value held within the country and by further amendment vide

Act 13 of 2018, it also added property which is abroad. By

further amendment vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, Explanation

has been added which is obviously a clarificatory amendment.

That is evident from the plain language of the inserted

Explanation itself. The fact that it also includes any property

which may, directly or indirectly, be derived as a result of any

criminal activity relatable to scheduled offence does not

transcend beyond the original provision. In that, the word

“relating to” (associated with/has to do with) used in the main

provision is a present participle of word “relate” and the word

“relatable” is only an adjective. The thrust of the original

provision itself is to indicate that any property is derived or

obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity

concerning the scheduled offence, the same be regarded as

proceeds of crime. In other words, property in whatever form

mentioned in Section 2(1)(v), is or can be linked to criminal

activity relating to or relatable to scheduled offence, must be

regarded as proceeds of crime for the purpose of the 2002 Act. It

must follow that the Explanation inserted in 2019 is merely

clarificatory and restatement of the position emerging from the

principal provision [i.e. Section 2(1)(u)].

106. The “proceeds of crime” being the core of the ingredients

constituting the offence of money laundering, that expression

needs to be construed strictly. In that, all properties recovered or

attached by the investigating agency in connection with the

criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence under the

general law cannot be regarded as proceeds of crime. There may

be cases where the property involved in the commission of

scheduled offence attached by the investigating agency dealing

with that offence, cannot be wholly or partly regarded as

proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the

______________

Page 33 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

2002 Act — so long as the whole or some portion of the property

has been derived or obtained by any person “as a result of”

criminal activity relating to the stated scheduled offence. To be

proceeds of crime, therefore, the property must be derived or

obtained, directly or indirectly, “as a result of” criminal activity

relating to a scheduled offence. To put it differently, the vehicle

used in commission of scheduled offence may be attached as

property in the case (crime) concerned, it may still not be

proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the

2002 Act. Similarly, possession of unaccounted property acquired

by legal means may be actionable for tax violation and yet, will

not be regarded as proceeds of crime unless the tax legislation

concerned prescribes such violation as an offence and such

offence is included in the Schedule to the 2002 Act. For being

regarded as proceeds of crime, the property associated with the

scheduled offence must have been derived or obtained by a

person “as a result of” criminal activity relating to the scheduled

offence concerned. This distinction must be borne in mind while

reckoning any property referred to in the scheduled offence as

proceeds of crime for the purpose of the 2002 Act. Dealing with

proceeds of crime by way of any process or activity constitutes

offence of money laundering under Section 3 PMLA.”

22. Now we would proceed to analyse the facts of the present

case. Based on a complaint that there had been indiscriminate illegal

quarrying of granites causing huge loss to the exchequer in Madurai

District, five FIRs came to be registered in Crime Nos.156/2012,

166/2012, 183/2012, 397/2013 and 19/2015 against various persons,

including the petitioner, disclosing that there had been a mining scam

______________

Page 34 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

involving granites, thereby causing loss to the tune of R s.449.55

crores to the exchequer of the State.

23. It is to be noted that the whole scam came to be unearthed,

pursuant to the orders of this Court appointing the District Collector to

probe into granite mining activities. FIR No.183/2012 came to be

registered for predicate offences under Sections 447, 379, 109,

120(b), 201, 406 and 420 of IPC r/w Section 3(1), 4(1) of TNPPDL Act

and Section 4(1), 4(2)(A), 4(3), 21(b)(5) of MMDR Act and Section 4

of Explosive Substance Act. The FIR was registered against M/s.RR

Granites, partner C.Rabeek Raja, the petitioner and 3 others. The

alleged loss to the exchequer was Rs.46.53 Crores in respect of this

FIR.

24. Since the case registered under Sections 420, 120(b) IPC

and Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act are scheduled offences,

the respondent/Enforcement Directorate had registered ECIR No.3 of

2014 and after completion of the investigation had filed the complaint

in C.C.No.9 of 2018 before the Principal District (Special Court for

______________

Page 35 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

PMLA Cases) Madurai against several persons, including M/s.RR

Granites and the petitioner herein who is arrayed as 4

th

accused.

25. In the complaint, it is stated in paragraph 4.3 that since

preliminary verification under the PMLA revealed the registration of 5

FIRs and filing of charge sheets against the accused persons, viz.,

C.Panneer Mohamed, C.Rabeek Raja and others,

proprietary/partnership companies including M/s.RR Granites and

others, wherein the said persons were accused of their involvement in

various illegal granite stones quarrying activities, causing loss to the

State exchequer valued to the tune of Rs.450 crores, during the overall

period between 2001 to 2012, there is a prima facie case for

continuing investigations under the PMLA.

26. The details of each of the cases registered are furnished and

the quantification of illegal quarrying has been done. Paragraph 4.5.3

states about the quarry of M/s.RR Granites, a partnership company of

Shri.P.Rajasekaran, the petitioner and C.Rabeek Raja, who are accused

in predicate offences. Relevant Portion is extracted as under;

“4.5.3. The quarry of M/s.RR Granites, a Partnership

company of Shri P.Rajasekaran and Shri C.Rabeek Raja, an

______________

Page 36 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

Accused Company in FIR No 183/2012 at Survey No.209/3F,

209/4A, 209/4B2, 209/4B3, 209/4B4, 209/4B5, 211/3, 211/4A,

213/1, 213/3, 213/4A, 213/9A, 213/9B, 215/10, 215/11A,

215/11C, 216/7A2, 216/9B of Malampatti Village, Melur Taluk,

Madurai District to the extent of 3.76.0 Hectares was inspected

by a team led by Assistant Director, Geology & Mining & Deputy

Director, Geology & Mining, Chennai wherein they have noticed

and reported, inter alia, the various General Violations they have

noticed during their inspection. The Inspection team categorically

quantified the following:

(Cub.Met) (In Rs)

ATotal Volume of Granite

Quarried in the Lease Hold Area

23436.25

BTotal Stock available in the

Leasehold Area

2066.67

CQuantity of Granite Transported

from the Lease hold Area (A- B)

21369.58

DAllowance @ 10% for block

Dressing (Rejects)

2136.96

EMarketable Quantity (C-D) 19232.62

FQuantity for which Transport

Permits obtained

5644.325

GQuantity of granite transported

illegally (E-F)

13588.29

HQuantity of granite illegally

quarried in the Non lease area -

Rate @ 20000 per Cub.Met

9674.30.40 193486000

ITotal Volume of Granite

transported illegally from the

leasehold and from the

unleashed area (G+H)

23262.59

JValue of Granite @ Rs.20000/-

per M

3

(Rs.20000 x 23262.59)

465251800

The Officials of the Geology & Mining in the said evaluation

report, have also specified about the methodology of the above

mentioned quantification including adoption of the values,

______________

Page 37 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

quantification of stock in hand, Dependence on data of District

Mines office on transport permits etc. The Evaluation report also

categorically states. inter alia, that from the Evaluations works

carried out, it was ascertained that the lessee (viz., M/s.RR

Granites, a Partnership company of Shri P.Rajasekaran and Shri

P.Rabeek Raja) has indulged in “illicit quarrying of granite to the

tune of 23262.59 M

3

.”

27. Statements under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the PMLA

were recorded from the accused persons involved in the case and also

the statement recorded from the petitioner is furnished at paragraph

4.6.16, which reads as follows;

“4.6.16. Shri P.Rajasekaran, S/o. Shri A.M.Pitchai, an accused

person in Final Report dated 14.10.2014 filed by DSP, District Crime

Records Bureau, Madurai in FIR No.183/2012 dated 29.08.2012,

wherein he has been accused of his involvement along with others in

various illegal Granite Stones quarrying activities, forgery, illegal usage

of explosives, encroachment, trespassing and causing loss to the tune of

Rs.47 Crores to the Govt. exchequer during the overall period between

2001 to 2012, vide his voluntary statement given under the provision of

Section 50(2) & (3) of PMLA, 2002 on 18.08.2017 had inter alia stated

that he had taken quarries on lease from the Government since 1986

wherein he had unearthed stones such as blue metals, etc.; that from

the year 1991 he started quarrying Granites after obtaining necessary

permission from the Authorities concerned and by paying appropriate

fees to the Government; that he has a proprietary concern in the name

of R.R. Traders; that he is a partner in R.R.Granites and P.R.Bricks; that

he would submit the Balance Sheets for the partnership concern

R.R.Granites shortly for perusal; that he would submit the details of the

properties available in his name along with the Income Returns filed by

______________

Page 38 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

him immediately.”

28. The verification of records and properties are listed out in

paragraph 4.7.2. It is stated that the verifications conducted with Sub-

Registrar Offices of Tamilnadu, disclosed that C.Rabeek Raja, partner

of M/s.RR Granites is possessing 127 immovable properties, totally

valued at Rs.4.41 crores as per the sale deed documents, for which

the guideline value as prescribed by the State is calculated to the tune

of Rs.36.38 crores. Apart from the same, paragraphs 4.7.3, 4.7.4,

4.7.5 and 4.7.6 deal with the income and properties of the wife and

sons of C.Rabeek Raja, partner of M/s.RR Granites.

29. The identification of proceeds of crime involved in money-

laundering and reasons to believe against the petitioner, are furnished

in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint, which read as under;

“5. From the investigation as set out above, it is clearly

evident that the persons accused in the FIRs/Charge Sheets,

viz., Shri C.Panneer Mohamed, Proprietor of M/s Madurai Granite

Exports, Shri C.Rabeek Raja, Proprietor of M.R. Granites and

partner of R.R.Granites, Smt. R.Kasaniya, Shri C. Nagoor Hanifa,

Shri C.Azad Mohammed, Shri C.Rajkapoor, Shri K.Heeralal, Shri

C.Anwar Ali, Shri I.Nazer, Smt. Sheela Begaum @ H.Asma

Begam, Shri P.Senthilkumar and Shri P.Rajasekaran, along with

the other accused persons accused in the FIRs/Final Reports as

detailed above filed by the Madurai District Police, have

______________

Page 39 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

committed “scheduled offences” as defined under Section 2(1)(x)

read with 2(1)(y) of PMLA, 2002 in the illegal quarrying of

granite slabs/blocks and trading of the same and have caused

wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.450 Crores to the Government

Exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

Further, by committing the said scheduled offences, Shri

C.Panneer Mohamed, Proprietor of M/s.Madurai Granite Exports,

Shri C.Rabeek Raja, Proprietor of M.R.Granites and partner of

R.R. Granites, Smt. R.Kasaniya, Shri C.Nagoor Hanifa, Shri

C.Azad Mohammed, Shri C.Rajkapoor, Shri K.Heeralal, Shri

C.Anwar Ali, Shri I.Nazer, Smt. Sheela Begaum @ H.Asma

Begam, Shri P.Senthilkumar and Shri P.Rajasekaran, along with

the other accused persons subsequent to the gaining of the

wrongful loss in each of the said Mining Lease agreements, sold

the granites in the international/domestic market in excess of the

declared quantity and realized the sale proceeds. The Quarry

lands available in names of Shri C.Panneer Mohamed, Shri C.

Rajkapoor, Shri P.Rajasekaran and Shri C.Anwar Ali, which were

used to generate and launder the crime proceeds are detailed

below and as such the same are properties involved in money

laundering they are liable for attachment under 5(1) of PMLA,

2002 and further adjudication and confiscation in terms of

Section 8 of PMLA.

S.

No

FIR No. Mining permission got in

the name of S/Shri

Details of the Property /

value

1.156/2012Shri .C.Panneer

Mohammed

S/o V.R. Chellakkannu

Rowther, vide Document

No. 1358/2006

dt.20.04.2006

0.99.0 Hectare of Land in

Keelaiyur Village of Melur

Taluk

Total extent of the Land =

0.99.0 Hectare

Guideline Value of the

land is Rs.580000/- per

Hectare.

Arrived Value =

Rs.580000/- X 0.99 =

Rs.5,74,200/-

______________

Page 40 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

2.166/2012Shri .C.Raj Kapoor

S/o V.R. Chellakkannu

Rowther.

For M/s M.R. Granites

Vide Document

No.1864/2004

dt.16.06.2004

5.45.0 Hectare of Land in

Keelavalavu Village of

Melur Taluk

Total extent of Land =

5.45.0 Hectare

Guideline Value of the

Land is Rs.414500 /- per

Hectare.

Arrived Value =

Rs.414500 /- X 5.45 =

Rs. 22,59,025 /-

3.183/2012Shri P.Rajasekaran

For M/s R.R. Granites

Vide Document No.

2111/2004 dated

29.06.2004

3.76.0 hectare of Land in

Malampatti Village of

Melur Taluk

Total extent of the Land =

3.76.0 Hectare (9.29

Acres)

Guideline Value of the

Land is Rs.268000 /- per

Acre.

Arrived Value =

Rs.268000 /- X 9.29 =

Rs.24,89,720 /-

4.397/2013Shri.C.Panneer

Mohammed

S/o V.R.Chellakannu

Rowther.

Vide Document

No.697/2004 dt.

10.03.2004

0.96.5 Hectare of Land in

Thiruvathavur Village of

Melur Taluk

Total extent of the Land =

0.96.5 Hectare (9650

Sq.Mt.)

Guideline Value of the

Land is Rs.365/- per

Sq.Mt.

Arrived Value = Rs. 365/-

X 9650 = Rs.35,22,250 /-

5.19/2015 Shri.C.Anwar Ali

S/o V.R.Chellakannu

Rowther.

Vide Document

No.934/2003

Dt.30.03.2004

1.11.5 Hcetare of Land in

Keelaiyur Village of Melur

Taluk

Total extent of the Land =

1.11.5 Hectare

Guide Line Value of the

Land is Rs.580000 /- per

Hectare.

Arrived Value = Rs.

580000 /- X 1.11.5 = Rs.

6,46,700 /-

______________

Page 41 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

6. Further, the pecuniary benefits obtained illegally by the

aforesaid persons were re-invested in acquisition of the

immovable properties in their own names and in the names of

their family members as well as in mining lease licenses in the

name of the proprietary companies owned by them and thereby

resulting in additional accruals. Most of the aforesaid persons

have filed Income Tax Returns, wherein they had chosen to

declare some of the immovable properties held in their

respective names and their family, however they had not

declared their entire properties and their respective value as per

the records. Thus they projected the laundered pecuniary

benefits in the form of certain immovable properties as

untainted. Hence, it is evident that the persons as named above,

used the proceeds of crime in acquisition of the assets in the

form of 511 immovable properties in the names of the aforesaid

persons and their family, which are totally valued at Rs.17.46

Crores (approximately) as per the registered documented value,

and the Guideline value prescribed by the Government of

Tamilnadu is to the tune of Rs.96.05 Crores (Approx.) .

30. In the complaint, the role of each of the accused involved in

the money-laundering case has been detailed in paragraph 10.

Paragraph 10.2 gives the details of the role of C.Rabeek Raja, partner

of M/s.RR Granites and paragraph 10.4 gives the details of the role

played by the petitioner. Relevant Portion is extracted as under;

“10.2. It is humbly submitted that Shri C.Rabeek Raja

(Accused–2 herein), has been named as an accused along with

______________

Page 42 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

his Proprietary concern M/s MR Granites and Partnership concern

M/s RR Granites among others vide FIR No.156/2012 dated

06.08.2012, 166/2012 dated 12.08.2012, 183/2012 dated

29.08.2012, 397/2013 dated 09.07.2013 & 19/2015 dated

30.01.2015, all registered by District Crime Branch of Madurai

City Police wherein he has been accused of his involvement in

various illegal Granite Stones quarrying activities, forgery, illegal

usage of explosives, encroachment, trespassing and causing loss

to the tune of Rs.450 Crores to the Government Exchequer,

along with others during the overall period between 2001 to

2012. Shri C.Rabeek Raja (Accused-2 herein), has

obtained/purchased several properties in his name out of the ill-

gotten earnings from the crimes committed by him vide the

above FIRs and Final Reports filed therein, for the commission of

offences under Sections 120B, 304, 420, 467 and 471 of the

Indian Penal Code and 1860, and offence under Sections 3 & 4

of the Explosive Substances Act,1908, which are Scheduled

Offences by virtue of Section 2(1)(x) & (2)(1)(y) of the Act,

under Paragraph 1 as well as Paragraph 3 of Part A of the

Schedule to the PMLA, 2002. The 108 immovable properties

acquired by Shri C.Rabeek Raja (Accused No.2 herein), which

have been identified as the proceeds of crime derived out of

commission of Scheduled offences as mentioned above and have

been attached from his possession vide Provisional Attachment

Order No.21/2017 dated 30.10.2017, are being projected by him

as untainted, which is nothing but an act of laundering the

proceeds of crime derived by him. While immovable properties

totally valued at Rs.4,11,18,450/- as per the registered

documents, the guideline value as prescribed by the Government

is estimated to be Rs.36,35,58,578/-. Accordingly it stands to

reason that the above said 108 immovable properties in the

name of Shri C.Rabeek Raja, are nothing but proceeds of crime

which are involved in Money Laundering. Shri C.Rabeek Raja has

______________

Page 43 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

directly indulged and actually involved in the money laundering

activity connected with the proceeds of crime derived by him,

including its concealment, possession, acquisition, use and

claiming and projecting the same as untainted properties and

thus committed the offence of money laundering under Section 3

of PMLA, 2002 and has been guilty of offence of money

laundering under Section 2(1)(p) r/w Section 3 of the PMLA,

2002, punishable under Section 4 of the said Act.”

“10.4. It is humbly submitted that M/s R.R Granites,

Represented by its Partner, Shri P.Rajasekaran

(Accused-04 herein) , has been named as an accused among

others vide FIR No.183/2012 dated 29.08.2012, registered by

District Crime Branch of Madurai City Police wherein he has been

accused of his involvement in various illegal Granite Stones

quarrying activities, forgery, illegal usage of explosives,

encroachment, trespassing and causing loss to the tune of Rs.47

Crores to the Govt. exchequer along with others during the

overall period between 2001 to 2012. Shri P.Rajasekaran

(Accused No.04 herein), in the capacity of a Partner in M/s R.R.

Granites, has been accused vide the above FIR and the Final

Report filed therein, for the commission of offences under

Sections 120B, 304, 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code

1860, and offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosives

Substances Act, 1908, which are Scheduled Offences by virtue of

Section 2(1)(x) & 2(1)(y) of the Act, under Paragraph 1 as well

as Paragraph 3 of Part A of the Schedule to the PMLA, 2002. The

immovable property acquired by Shri P.Rajasekaran (Accused

No.04 herein) valued at Rs.24,89,720/-, for which Mining

Permission was obtained from Government vide Document

No.2111/2004 dated 29.06.2004 for M/s R.R.Granites, wherein

Shri P.Rajasekaran (Accused No.04 herein) is a partner. The said

immovable property, which was used to generate and launder

______________

Page 44 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

the crime proceeds by the Accused persons named herein, and

as such the same is involved in money laundering and has been

attached from vide Provisional Attachment Order No.21/2017

dated 30.10.2017. Accordingly it stands to reason that Shri

P.Rajasekaran has been knowingly a party to the activities

connected with the proceeds of crime derived by other Accused

Persons as named above, who have obtained/purchased several

properties in their respective names out of the ill gotten earnings

from the crimes committed by them vide the above FIR and Final

Report filed therein, and thus committed the offence of money

laundering under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and has been guilty of

offence of money laundering under Section 2(1)(p) r/w Section 3

of PMLA, 2002, punishable under Section 4 of the said Act.”

31. The provisional attachment of properties involved in money-

laundering has been furnished in paragraph 7 containing III schedules.

Schedule-I contains 5 properties, out of which item 3 pertains to the

property in the name of the petitioner. There are 108 properties listed

in schedule III B in the name of C.Rabeek Raja, partner of M/s.RR

Granites and several other properties listed in the names of wife and

sons of C.Rabeek Raja.

32. As per the averments in paragraph 5 of the complaint under

the identification of proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering

and reasons to believe, it is stated that the accused persons in the

predicate offence C.Rabeek Raja, partner of M/s.RR Granites,

______________

Page 45 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

P.Rajasekaran along with other accused persons, have committed

‘scheduled offences’ as defined under 2(1)(x) r/w 2(1)(y) of PMLA in

the illegal quarrying of granite blocks and had caused loss to the tune

of Rs.450 Crores to the Government exchequer [Rs.46.53 Crores] in

respect of the petitioner in Crime No.183/2012.

33. By committing the scheduled offence, C.Rabeek Raja,

partner of M/s.RR Granites and the petitioner who is also a partner in

M/s.RR Granites along with other accused persons, sold the granites in

international and domestic markets and realised sale proceeds. The

quarry lands available in the names of P.Rajasekaran, the petitioner

herein and others named persons, which were used to generate and

launder the crime proceeds, have been detailed.

34. In the details furnished in item 3, the name of the petitioner

and document dated 29.06.2004 in No.2111/2004 is mentioned by

giving the details of the lands and its value. The averments in

paragraph 6 specifically states that the pecuniary benefits obtained

illegally by the aforesaid persons were reinvested in acquisition of the

immovable properties in their own names and in the names of their

family members, as well as in mining lease licences. The proceeds of

______________

Page 46 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

crime has been used in acquisition of assets in the form of 511

immovable properties and the details of the immovable properties

acquired through the proceeds of crime were also separately listed out,

including 108 properties in the name of C.Rabeek Raja, partner of

M/s.RR Granites and 138 properties in the name of wife of C.Rabeek

Raja and 57 properties in the name of the sons of C.Rabeek Raja.

35. When the complaint filed by the respondent/Enforcement

Directorate is considered as a whole, it reveals that atleast 5 cases

came to be registered involving scheduled offences under the Act. The

entire illegal quarrying and loss caused to Government exchequer has

been calculated at Rs.450 Crores. In respect of the predicate case

registered involving the petitioner, the illegal mining and loss to the

state has been quantified at Rs.46.53 Crores. The Enforcement

Directorate had registered the ECIR based on the predicate offence

which after investigation has resulted in the impugned complaint. As

per the charges in the predicate offence and the averments in the

complaint under the PMLA, it is to be noted that one RR Granites, a

partnership firm, had involved in a large scale illegal mining activities.

While listing out nearly 108 properties purchased in the name of

C.Rabeek Raja from out of the ill-gotten proceeds of crime committed

______________

Page 47 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

in the scheduled offence, one of the property in the name of the

petitioner is also listed out.

36. It has been specifically averred that the quarry lands

available in the name of the petitioner which is listed as item 3 were

used to generate and launder the crime proceeds and therefore the

property is involved in money-laundering and is liable for attachment.

As such, even though the petitioner had purchased the property

through sale deed on 31.01.2000, which is prior to the period 2001 to

2012, during which the illegalities had happened in respect of the

predicate offence, the date mentioned as 29.06.2004 is the renewal

obtained by the petitioner in respect of the property listed in item 3.

37. When the averments states that the proceeds of crime were

used to generate and launder the crime proceeds through purchase of

immovable properties as well as in procuring mining licences, the

contention of the petitioner that simply because the property was

purchased prior to 2001, the petitioner could not be implicated for an

offence under the PMLA is misplaced. Even assuming that the

petitioner had purchased this property as on 31.01.2000 itself, the fact

remains that the petitioner had obtained a mining lease in respect of

______________

Page 48 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

this property on 29.06.2004. When the complaint specifically states

that the proceeds of crime had been used to generate and launder the

ill-gotten money, it is to be noted that the property which have been

purchased by the petitioner in the year 2000 had been put to use by

obtaining a transfer and renewal of mining lease in the year 2004. To

start the mining operations by obtaining transfer and renewal in

respect of vast extent of land definitely requires huge investments to

be made to start the business and excavate the granite blocks.

38. As per Section 2(1)(v) of PMLA, property means any asset

even tangible or intangible, evidencing any interest in such property,

that would come within the definitions of proceeds of crime under 2(1)

(u) of the Act. Further as per Section 3 of the Act concealment,

possession, acquisition or use of proceeds of crime, shall be guilty of

the offence of money-laundering.

39. When as per the predicate offence, the petitioner and one

C.Rabeek Raja, partners of M/s.RR Granites have committed illegalities

and charged for several offences including the scheduled offence and

the amount quantified is Rs.46.53 Crores, apart from listing out

several properties in the name of one of the partners and his family

______________

Page 49 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

members running to more than 300 documents, the property standing

in the name of the petitioner had also been listed out. Even though

this property has been acquired prior to 2001 but still it can always be

used to launder the crime proceeds.

40. In the complaint, by mentioning the document dated

29.06.2004, which is actually a renewal of lease by the petitioner and

by making a specific averment that this property is used to launder the

crime proceeds by obtaining mining lease licences, there are sufficient

details disclosing the offence alleged to have been committed by the

petitioner.

41. In fact, further while describing the role of each accused

involved in the money-laundering, the complaint in paragraph 10.4

specifically states that the petitioner is named as accused in the

predicate offence in FIR No.183/2012 where loss to the tune of

Rs.49.53 Crores is made to the Government exchequer and the

immovable property acquired by the petitioner for which mining

permission was obtained from the Government, vide Document

No.2111/2004 dated 29.06.2004 for M/s.RR Granites, where the

petitioner is a partner, is furnished in detail. Further averment states

______________

Page 50 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

that the said immovable property was used to generate and launder

the crime proceeds by the petitioner and as such, he is involved in

money-laundering, which resulted in the attachment of the property

through provisional attachment order No.21/2017 dated 30.10.2017

and therefore the petitioner had been knowingly a party to the

activities connected with the proceeds of crime and committed the

offence under Section 3 of the PMLA.

42. When the complaint, on the face of it prima facie discloses

offence under the Act and the details have been furnished by the

respondent department in the complaint, the complaint has to be read

as a whole and the petitioner cannot read it in-part to suit his

convenience. The complaint, apart from stating that the properties

were used to generate the proceeds of crime, had also stated that it is

used to launder the proceeds of crime. When the details of the lease is

also given, which admittedly falls within the period from 2001 to 2012

covered in the predicate offence, the same is sufficient and all other

details could be gone into only during the trial.

43. When the sufficient averments and materials are prima facie

available in the complaint, the special court has rightly taken

______________

Page 51 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

cognizance. It is not a case where there is no details or materials

furnished or when even accepted in entirety, no case is made out

against the petitioner. On the other hand, the complaint gives

necessary detail in respect of the role of the accused and the property

used to launder the proceeds of crime and the lease obtained from the

proceeds of crime, apart from listing out several properties. While

exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is

not expected to conduct a roving enquiry to see whether the

averments in the complaint would result in ultimate conviction. All that

is required is to see as to whether the materials available in the

complaint, prima facie discloses an offence which require a fair trial.

44. In our considered opinion, there are sufficient averments in

the complaint disclosing a cognizable offence against the petitioner

that require a fair trial and the case does not fall within the parameters

laid down in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 for this Court to exercise its extraordinary

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint at the

threshold.

______________

Page 52 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

45. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

05.03.2026

Index : Yes

Neutral Citation: Yes

bbr/sri

To:

Directorate of Enforcement,

rep. by the Deputy Director,

(The Prevention of Money Laundering

Act, 2002)

Government of India,

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,

2

nd

& 3

rd

Floor, C Block,

Murugesa Naicker Complex,

84, Greams Road, Thousand Lights,

Chennai-600 006.

______________

Page 53 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr/sri

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019

05.03.2026

______________

Page 54 of 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis