### Predicate PMLA Proceedings Survive as Long as Any Scheduled Offence Remains Geuninely Pending or Sub Judice

The petitioners, comprising Jogendra Tiwari and eleven associated business entities, were implicated in ECIR Case No. 08 of 2023.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated the probe based on four predicate FIRs involving land grabbing ("Roy Bangla"), illegal sand mining, and liquor smuggling.

The ED alleged that Tiwari acted as the "beneficial owner" of the entities, using them to layer and integrate proceeds of crime (POC) amounting to ₹13,29,92,620, particularly through synchronized cash deposits in 2021 to secure wholesale liquor licenses.

The petitioners moved for discharge, arguing that several predicate FIRs had been quashed or resulted in Final Reports (closure).

The Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, rejected the discharge applications on 21.08.2025.

1. Whether the discharge of an accused under PMLA is mandated when some predicate FIRs face closure reports or quashing, but others remain active or subject to protest petitions?

2. Whether the material on record established a *prima facie* case and "grave suspicion" of money laundering to warrant trial?

The Court relied on Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002, defining the offence and punishment for money laundering.

It applied the doctrine from *Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India*, which establishes that PMLA proceedings are standalone but require the existence of a "scheduled offence".

The Court cited *Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement* to clarify that an accused in a PMLA case need not be a named accused in the predicate offence.

Regarding discharge, it applied the standards under Section 227 CrPC/Section 250 BNSS, referencing *Sajjan Kumar v. CBI* and *M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI*, which mandate that a court must only "sift" evidence to find "grave suspicion" rather than conducting a mini-trial.

The Court reasoned that while the petitioners claimed the predicate offences were extinguished, four foundational FIRs remained legally "active": two land-related FIRs were subject to pending Protest Petitions (legally equivalent to pending proceedings), the Sand FIR was remanded for fresh consideration, and the Rikhiya P.S. (Liquor) FIR had proceeded to cognizance.

The Court noted that the ED's quantification of ₹5.66 crore in POC was derived specifically from these four active FIRs, independent of the nine quashed liquor FIRs.

Applying the "grave suspicion" test, the Court found the synchronized 1145.87% increase in cash deposits and the use of shell companies to layer funds for liquor licenses constituted sufficient *prima facie* evidence of "placement, layering, and integration".

The Court emphasized that at the discharge stage, the defense’s explanations regarding "business turnover" or "sham loans" are triable issues that cannot be adjudicated without a full trial.

The Court held that the Special Judge correctly identified a "strong presumptive opinion" of guilt based on the financial trail.

The High Court dismissed all criminal revision petitions, affirming the order dated 21.08.2025, and directed the trial to proceed.