Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 12 October 2026 (Reserved on 4 September 2026)

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Seven entities – Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt. Ltd., Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Marzook & Cadar Pvt. Ltd., Shantilal Khushaldas and Brothers Pvt. Ltd., S. Kantilal & Company Pvt. Ltd., M/S Sova (partnership), and M/S Mineira Nacional Limitada – represented by Mr. Shivappa alias Shivanand Dyamappa Chawan.
  • Respondents: Union of India (through Ministry of Finance), Directorate of Enforcement (ED), and State of Goa (via Special Investigation Team).
  • Separate writ petitions filed: Criminal Writ Petition No. 153 of 2026 (filed 24 Feb 2026) and Criminal Writ Petition No. 164 of 2026 (filed 17 Feb 2026) – both challenging ECIR No. PJZO/2/2014 dated 9 June 2014 and FIR No. 15/2013 dated 12 Aug 2013.
  • FIR No. 15/2013 was registered by the Crime Branch, Goa, under multiple IPC sections, the Prevention of Corruption Act, the MMDR Act, and various mineral concession rules. The petitioners were not named as accused in the FIR.
  • The Special Investigation Team (SIT) conducted a search on 17 June 2017 and filed a chargesheet in February 2018 (Special Criminal Case No. 02/2018) naming 17 persons, none of whom were the petitioners or their directors. The Special Judge discharged all accused on 10 Feb 2025; the State has not challenged this order.
  • The ED issued ECIR No. PJZO/2/2014 on the basis of the FIR, invoking the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
  • The Supreme Court, on 17 Jan 2023, quashed the Division Bench order of 22 Mar 2013 that had directed registration of the FIR, thereby removing the predicate offence.
  • The High Court previously quashed the FIR on 16 July 2026 (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2026). The petitioners argued that, with the FIR quashed, the ECIR cannot stand.
  • Counsel for petitioners (Mr. Nadkarni) relied on Supreme Court judgments (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary 2023, Pavanna Dibbur 2023, Naresh Goyal 2023, Krishna Shantaram Chamankar 2025, South Indian Bank 2024) establishing that a PMLA proceeding requires a subsisting scheduled offence.
  • Counsel for the ED (Mr. Samant) contended that the ECIR could continue despite the FIR’s quashing, citing other judgments (Niket Kansal 2025, Vijayraj Surana 2024, Pawan Insaa 2024). The Court rejected this view, emphasizing that without a predicate offence the ECIR is legally untenable.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court affirmed its earlier order quashing FIR No. 15/2013.
  • Accordingly, ECIR No. PJZO/2/2014 is quashed and set aside as far as it relates to the petitioners, their directors, partners, employees and shareholders.
  • Both Criminal Writ Petition No. 153 of 2026 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 164 of 2026 are allowed in accordance with prayer clause (a).
  • The rule is made absolute; the petitions stand disposed of.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • The order will be digitally signed and circulated via fax or email.

Topics: Illegal Mining, PMLA Enforcement