TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 3 read with Section 70, punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter "impugned Order"). The subject matter of the proceeding is ECIR bearing No. ECIR/MBZO/II/03/2021. 4. Petitioners have sought the following substantive reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (b) to (d): - (b) That this Hon'ble Court may be quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 06.05.2025 on Exhibit -1 passed by the Hon'ble Special Judge, PMLA at Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai in PMLA Special Case No. 715 of 2025 whereby process is issued u/s. 3 and 70 r/w. Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against the Petitioners. (c) That this Hon'ble Court may be quash and set aside all the proceedings including the Prosecution Complaint in PMLA Special Case No. 715 of 2025 filed by the Directorate of Enforcement u/s. 3 and 70 r/w. Section A 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Special Judge, PMLA at Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, against the Petitioners. (d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, this Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Only on that ground, the impugned order dated 20th April, 2024, will have to be set aside." 7. In the case of Parvinder Singh v. Enforcement Directorate 2026 SCC OnLine SC 903 in paragraph Nos. 32 to 37, The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "32. In such view of the matter, we are in absolute agreement with the decisions rendered by this Court in Tarsem Lal (supra), Yash Tuteja (supra) and Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra), which we quote profitably. Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 7 SCC 61 "17. After carefully perusing the provisions of PMLA, we find that there is no provision therein which is in any manner inconsistent with Section 205 CrPC. Hence, it will apply to a complaint under PMLA. A summons is issued on a complaint to ensure attendance of the accused before the criminal court. If an accused is in custody, no occasion arises for a court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused. We may note here that Section 205 empowers the court to grant exemption only when a summons is issued. Sub-section (2) of Section 205 provides for enforcing the attendanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Special Court, the provisions of Sections 200 to 204 CrPC will apply to the complaint. There is no provision in PMLA which overrides the provisions of Sections 200 to Sections 204 CrPC. Hence, the Special Court will have to apply its mind to the question of whether a prima facie case of a commission of an offence under Section 3 PMLA is made out in a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA. If the Special Court is of the view that no prima facie case of an offence under Section 3 PMLA is made out, it must exercise the power under Section 203 CrPC to dismiss the complaint. If a prima facie case is made out, the Special Court can take recourse to Section 204 CrPC." (emphasis supplied) Kaushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221. "5. This Court has taken a consistent view that a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA will be governed by Sections 200 to 204 of the CrPC. This view has been taken by this Court in the cases of Yash Tuteja v. Union of India, (2024) 8 SCC 465, and Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 7 SCC 61. Therefore, the provisions of Chapter XVI, containing Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence." 27. The stage of inquiry commences, insofar as the court is concerned, with the filing of the charge-sheet and the consideration of the material collected by the prosecution, that is mentioned in the charge-sheet for the purpose of trying the accused. This has to be understood in terms of Section 2(g) CrPC, which defines an inquiry as follows: "2. (g) 'inquiry' means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or court." 28. In State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman, (1983) 2 SCC 372, this Court held that from the stage of filing of charge-sheet to ensuring the compliance with the provision of Section 207 CrPC, the court is only at the stage of inquiry and no trial can be said to have commenced. The above view has been held to be per incuriam in Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 4 SCC 495, wherein this Court while observing that Section 319(1) CrPC operates in an ongoing inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, held that at the stage of Section 209 CrPC, the court is neither at the stage of inquiry nor at the stage of trial. Even at the stage of ....