Madras High Court
M/S.R.R.Granites vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 21 December, 2018
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
2026:MHC:921
Crl.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, 1st 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,
2nd & 3rd 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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 54https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019the 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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 M³ 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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 others1.
(iii) Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and
others3.
(iv) Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and
others4.
(v) Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others5.
(vi) Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT of Delhi
and others6.
(vii) Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 7.
(viii) Thesima Begam and another v. State of Tamil Nadu
and others8.
(ix) Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and another v. State
of Gujarat and others9.
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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, 4th 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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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
India10.
(ii) Y.Balaji v. Karthik Desari and others11.
(iii) Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of
Enforcement and others12.
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 r espect 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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019
involving granites, thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs.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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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)
A Total Volume of Granite 23436.25
Quarried in the Lease Hold Area
B Total Stock available in the 2066.67
Leasehold Area
C Quantity of Granite Transported 21369.58
from the Lease hold Area (A- B)
D Allowance @ 10% for block 2136.96
Dressing (Rejects)
E Marketable Quantity (C-D) 19232.62
F Quantity for which Transport 5644.325
Permits obtained
G Quantity of granite transported 13588.29
illegally (E-F)
H Quantity of granite illegally 9674.30.40 193486000
quarried in the Non lease area -
Rate @ 20000 per Cub.Met
I Total Volume of Granite 23262.59
transported illegally from the
leasehold and from the
unleashed area (G+H)
J Value of Granite @ Rs.20000/- 465251800
per M3 (Rs.20000 x 23262.59)
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 M3.”
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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. FIR No. Mining permission got in Details of the Property /
No the name of S/Shri value
1. 156/2012 Shri .C.Panneer 0.99.0 Hectare of Land in
Mohammed Keelaiyur Village of Melur
S/o V.R. Chellakkannu Taluk
Rowther, vide Document Total extent of the Land =
No. 1358/2006 0.99.0 Hectare
dt.20.04.2006 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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8317 of 2019
2. 166/2012 Shri .C.Raj Kapoor 5.45.0 Hectare of Land in
S/o V.R. Chellakkannu Keelavalavu Village of
Rowther. Melur Taluk
For M/s M.R. Granites Total extent of Land =
Vide Document 5.45.0 Hectare
No.1864/2004 Guideline Value of the
dt.16.06.2004 Land is Rs.414500 /- per
Hectare.
Arrived Value =
Rs.414500 /- X 5.45 =
Rs. 22,59,025 /-
3. 183/2012 Shri P.Rajasekaran 3.76.0 hectare of Land in
For M/s R.R. Granites Malampatti Village of
Vide Document No. Melur Taluk
2111/2004 dated Total extent of the Land =
29.06.2004 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. 397/2013 Shri.C.Panneer 0.96.5 Hectare of Land in
Mohammed Thiruvathavur Village of
S/o V.R.Chellakannu Melur Taluk
Rowther. Total extent of the Land =
Vide Document 0.96.5 Hectare (9650
No.697/2004 dt. Sq.Mt.)
10.03.2004 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 1.11.5 Hcetare of Land in
S/o V.R.Chellakannu Keelaiyur Village of Melur
Rowther. Taluk
Vide Document Total extent of the Land =
No.934/2003 1.11.5 Hectare
Dt.30.03.2004 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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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,
2nd & 3rd 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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 06:50:26 pm )
