PMLA investigation can proceed without an FIR, and Section 50 summons is not usually open to writ challenge.

A Section 50 PMLA summons is an investigatory step requiring attendance, statement, and production of records, so writ interference is generally not warranted at that stage. Proceedings under the PMLA may commence without a prior FIR for the scheduled offence where material indicates proceeds of crime. Immunity under Section 245H of the Income-tax Act is confined to that statute and does not extend to PMLA proceedings. The PMLA authority is also not dependent on an SFIO final report under the Companies Act, and a later SFIO complaint filed before judgment may be taken into account to remove the objection that no scheduled offence existed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can commence in the absence of an FIR in respect of a scheduled offence; (iii) whether immunity granted under the Income-tax Act, 1961 extends to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; and (iv) whether the respondent's powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are dependent on the final report of the SFIO under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, including whether subsequent filing of a complaint by the SFIO can be considered.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: A summons under Section 50 merely requires attendance, statement, and production of records in aid of investigation. It does not by itself create an adverse civil consequence or a completed cause of action. The challenge was directed at the investigation stage, and the summons did not justify judicial interference at that stage.

Conclusion: The writ petition was premature and not maintainable against the summons.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can commence in the absence of an FIR in respect of a scheduled offence.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permits inquiry and investigation on the basis of material relating to proceeds of crime, and the Supreme Court has held that absence of an FIR does not bar commencement of inquiry or investigation. The summons in the present case was issued only for investigation, and the Court followed the settled position that registration of an FIR is not a precondition.

Conclusion: Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can commence without an FIR in respect of the scheduled offence.

Issue (iii): Whether immunity granted under the Income-tax Act, 1961 extends to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The immunity under Section 245H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is confined to prosecution under that Act and, in the present statutory setting, does not extend to prosecution or proceedings under other Central enactments for applications made after 01.06.2007. The settlement machinery under the Income-tax Act does not deal with money-laundering proceedings.

Conclusion: The immunity granted under the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not protect the petitioners from proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (iv): Whether the respondent's powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are dependent on the final report of the SFIO under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, including whether subsequent filing of a complaint by the SFIO can be considered.

Analysis: The authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not conditioned on the completion of SFIO proceedings or on a final report under the Companies Act, 2013. The Court also held that subsequent events existing before judgment can be taken into account, and the later filing of the SFIO complaint removed the factual foundation of the petitioners' objection that there was no scheduled offence.

Conclusion: The respondent's powers are not dependent on the SFIO final report, and the subsequent SFIO complaint could be considered.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the summons and the investigation failed on all material grounds, and no interference was warranted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 at the investigation stage is not ordinarily amenable to writ interference, and initiation of inquiry under the Act does not require a prior FIR where the statutory material indicates a possible scheduled offence and proceeds of crime.

---