Money laundering complaints need a registered predicate offence; private complainants cannot compel ECIR or FIR registration under PMLA.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was described as a complete code for money-laundering investigation and prosecution, operating only where a scheduled offence is already registered. In the absence of an FIR for the predicate offence, the Enforcement Directorate had no basis to initiate proceedings, and the Act provides no power equivalent to Section 156(3) CrPC for a private complainant to compel registration of an ECIR or FIR. Cognizance under Sections 44 and 45 lies only on complaint by the authorised statutory authority. The petition was also treated as territorially barred because the alleged and subject matter were connected to Gurugram, Haryana, and the challenge was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a private complainant could seek a direction to the Enforcement Directorate to register an ECIR or FIR and pursue investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the complaint was maintainable before the Delhi court.

Analysis: The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as a complete code for investigation and prosecution of money-laundering offences. The Court noted that proceedings under the Act arise only when there is a registered scheduled offence, and in the absence of any FIR for the predicate offence, the Enforcement Directorate had no cause to initiate proceedings. It was also held that the Act contains no provision comparable to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enabling a direction to the Enforcement Directorate to register an FIR or ECIR. Further, Sections 44 and 45 of the Act contemplate cognizance only on complaint by the authorised statutory authority, not by a private complainant. The allegations and subject matter were also found to relate to Gurugram, Haryana, making the Delhi court without territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable and no direction could be issued to the Enforcement Directorate or the police to register an FIR or investigate on the private complaint.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was found to suffer from no illegality or perversity, and the petition challenging it was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a registered scheduled offence, and where the statute authorises cognizance only on complaint by the prescribed authority, a private complainant cannot invoke Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to compel investigation or registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

---