BNSS No. 17996 of 2026 · Allahabad High Court

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey and Sri Parashar Pandey, learned counsel for applicants as well as Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sushant Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party.

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants that applicants are being proceeded under Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It is submitted that a compliant was filed with the predicate offence against several accused including father of applicants. In the predicate offence, First Information Report has been stayed by High Court of Delhi by order dated 9.1.2025 in respect of father of applicants. Applicants are children of accused Suraj Prakash. The allegation against applicants is that sum of Rs.4,68,200/- has been transferred in the PPF account of applicant no.1 and some amount has been transferred in the account of applicant no.2. FDs, gold and bonds were also purchased. Learned counsel for applicants submits that once it is alleged that applicants have received the aforesaid amount from their father Suraj Prakash, whose prosecution has already been stayed in the predicate offence by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, coupled with the fact that amount that is alleged to have been transferred in the PPF account, the respondent does not disclose as to how said amount is proceed of crime. It is submitted that keeping the amount in account of children by itself cannot be an offence under PMLA unless it is shown that applicants were having active knowledge of the fact that amount 2 NA528 No. 17996 of 2026 being transferred in the account is proceed of crime.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

It is to be seen that applicants were not involved in the predicate criminal activity. The allegation against applicants is to the effect that in the account of applicants amount has been transferred by father of applicants, who is accused in the predicate offence and some fixed deposit and bonds have been purchased. The prosecution of applicants under Section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act has been initiated and amount deposited by father in the account of children may not be an offence. It has not been shown that children were having knowledge of crime proceeds or active participation in the criminal activity in the predicate offence. Father having deposited the amount in the account of children without knowledge of children that the aforesaid amount is proceed of crime, prima facie, may not entail criminal prosecution.

List on 26.5.2026.

Until further order, further proceedings in Prosecution Complaint Case No.4 of 2025 (ECIR No.ECIR/DLZO-I/15/2023) dated 28.3.2025 filed by respondent no.2 before learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, under Section 44 & 45 r/w 70 of PMLA, for commission of offence of Money Laundering as defined under Section 3 of PMLA 2002 punishable under Section 4 of PMLA 2002 shall remain stayed against applicants, namely, Shashank Singhal and Shreya Singhal. May 1, 2026 D. Tamang (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)