IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN Crl.O.P.No.35200 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.24737 and 24738 of 2025

1.R.Sampath S/o.Late V.N.Ramachandran

2.S.Suguna W/o.R.Sampath Both residing at, MIG-590, 28th Cross Street, Thiruvallur Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041 Petitioners Vs The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002)

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, 5^th & 6^th Floor, BSNL Administrative Building No.2, Kushkumar Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 Respondent PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records in Spl. C.C.No.8 of 2025 pending on the file of the XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners.

For Petitioners: Mr.A.Nagarajan For Respondent: Mr.Sibi Vishnu 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. This petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2025, by which the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, has taken cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint in the matter of ECIR/CEZO-1/03/2020.

3. The only submission to challenge the order taking cognizance is that it is directly in the teeth of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 12025 SCC OnLine SC 1221. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, no cognizance could be taken without giving notice to the petitioners, as the complaint itself was filed on 26.03.2025, after coming into force of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, whereafter, cognizance was taken on 07.10.2025.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, relying upon the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of G.Ganesan v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, 32025 SCC OnLine Mad 11885 submits that since in the present case the ECIR was registered prior to coming into force of the BNSS with effect from 1.7.2024, further proceedings shall be governed by the

2Crl. Rev. No.218 of 2025, dated 19.05.2025

repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as per the provisions contained in Section 531 of the BNSS.

5. In the case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra), their Lordships in the Supreme Court have authoritatively enunciated the legal position in this regard as below:

“3. In the present case, a complaint was filed under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the PMLA”) on August 2, 2024. The appellant is shown as accused in the complaint. The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the BNSS”) came into force on July 1, 2024.

Section 223 of the BNSS reads thus:

‘223. Examination of complainant.

(1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:

Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard:

Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-

(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under secti