Rinku Singh v. Union of India

Kashish SaxenaCase Summary

Quashing of proceedings in a money laundering case where the petitioner benefited from the proceeds of crime

Rinku Singh v. Union of India
In the High Court of Patna
Crl. Misc. 17713/2022
Before Justice Satyavrat Verma
Decided on December 05, 2023

Relevancy of the case: Quashing of proceedings in a money laundering case where the petitioner benefited from the proceeds of crime

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 469, 471, 472, 473, 120B)
  • The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Section 3, 4, 45)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • In Bihar, the Economic Offences Unit of Patna found certain government and semi-government departments that held large amounts of funds.
  • The image of an original cheque was circulated, based on which multiple fake cheques were formed, and money was withdrawn with the help of bank officials.
  • The petitioner is a housewife with no independent source of income. She is the wife of one of the co-accused in the PMLA case.
  • The FIR did not mention her name. Moreover, it did not appear at any point during the investigation.
  • The ED found a flat purchased in 2011, a certain sum of money in her bank account, and a life insurance policy to her name.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The petitioner’s counsel argued that the previous FIR did not mention her name. The police registered the FIR in 2013, while the flat was purchased in 2011.
  • The respondent’s counsel submitted that the petitioner does not have an independent source of income. Her assets are a way to manage the illegal proceeds of the accused-husband. Moreover, he confessed to his crimes in 2008, and the flat was purchased in 2011. Hence, the petitioner’s contention is invalid.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The court agreed with the respondent’s contentions, holding that economic offences significantly threaten the country’s financial health.

Final Decision

  • The bench refused to entertain the quashing application and dismissed the same.