IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE
S.P.RAJAN – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Director – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.01.2026 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.Crl.No.113 of 2026 and WP MP Crl.No.27 of 2026 S.P.Rajan S/o.VSP Subramanian, No.56-E, RITZ Hotel Road, Grace Hill, Coonoor, The Nilgiris.
Petitioner Vs The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Greams Road, BSNL Building, Tower-II, Third Floor, Thousand Lights, Chennai -600 006.
Respondent PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the File No.CEZ02/4/2022/2316 in Summon No.PMLA/Summon/CEZ0- II/2025/1596 of the respondent dated 18.12.2025, and quash the same.
For Petitioner: Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi Senior Counel for Mr.L.Palani Muthu For Respondent: Mr.N.Ramesh Special Public Prosecutor for ED Cases ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Challenge to the summon issued by the respondent is premised mainly on the submission that, while making investigation into the predicate offence, a detailed enquiry was already made and whatever information required was also already collected. It is submitted that, in the predicate offence, charge-sheet has already been filed and, at this stage, no purpose would be served in issuing summon to the petitioner by the respondent authority in the proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (the Act).
3. After going through the contents of the petition and the record, we find that after registration of the predicate offence, the respondent authority had initiated proceedings under the Act and in connection with the same, the petitioner has been summoned. The petitioner, undoubtedly, is an accused in the predicate offence. Therefore, the challenge to the summon only on such factual assertion is not tenable in law.
4. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
20.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr To:
The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Greams Road, BSNL Building, Tower-II, Third Floor, Thousand Lights, Chennai -600 006.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
bbr
20.01.2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.