Existence of pending predicate offences and protest petitions precludes discharge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Eleven petitioner entities and their "beneficial owner," Jogendra Tiwari, challenged the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, which rejected their discharge applications in ECIR Case No. 08 of 2023

The ED initiated the case based on four primary FIRs involving land fraud (Roy Bangla property), illegal sand mining, and liquor smuggling

The ED alleged that Jogendra Tiwari generated proceeds of crime (POC) amounting to ₹13,29,92,620/- through these crimes and laundered the money by layering it through the petitioner entities to pay wholesale liquor license fees

The petitioners argued for discharge on the grounds that several predicate FIRs were quashed or closed, thereby extinguishing the basis for PMLA prosecution

Whether the order rejecting the discharge applications suffered from legal error given the status of the predicate offences

Whether the evidence collected during the investigation established a *prima facie* case against the petitioners to warrant trial

The Court applied the definition of "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, 2002, noting that it includes property derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity relatable to a scheduled offence

It relied on *Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India*, which established that PMLA proceedings can continue as long as a scheduled offence is pending enquiry or trial and only extinguish upon final acquittal or quashing

The Court also applied Section 250 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 227 CrPC) regarding discharge, emphasizing that at this stage, the court must only look for "grave suspicion" rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt

It further integrated the principle from *Pavana Dibbur v. ED*, holding that an accused in a PMLA case need not be a named accused in the predicate offence

The Court reasoned that while the petitioners claimed the predicate offences were "extinguished," the factual record demonstrated that four core FIRs (Land, Sand, and Liquor) remained legally active

Specifically, regarding the Land FIRs, the Court noted that "Final Forms" submitted by the police had not been accepted by the Trial Court, and "Protest Petitions" were pending, which constitute active judicial proceedings

The Court found that the ED had successfully mapped a financial trail of ₹5,66,34,500/- derived exclusively from these active FIRs, independent of any quashed liquor cases

Applying the "grave suspicion" test, the Court held that the synchronized 1145.87% increase in cash deposits in the petitioners’ accounts during the liquor licensing window suggested a coordinated laundering operation under Jogendra Tiwari’s control

The Court determined that the petitioners' arguments regarding the legitimacy of loans and business turnover were triable issues of fact that could not be adjudicated in a "mini-trial" at the discharge stage

The High Court held that the Special Judge correctly applied the law in finding sufficient material to presume the commission of the offence

Consequently, the Court dismissed all Criminal Revision petitions, affirming the order dated 21.08.2025 and directing the trial to proceed