IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6195 OF 2024 DATE: 30.03.2026 Between :

V. Gopala Reddy … Petitioner/Accused No.1.

AND Directorate of Enforcement represented by its Assistant Director, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 3d Floor, Shakar Bhavan, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad – 500 004, represented by Special Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

… Respondent/Complainant.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), challenging the order dated 13.02.2024 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 50 of 2024 in S.C. No. 109 of 2015, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 201 Cr.P.C. seeking return of the complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1 in S.C. No. 109 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), Nampally, Hyderabad. The prosecution arises from proceedings initiated under the PMLA, wherein cognizance of the offence was taken in the year 2015 and process was issued to the accused persons.

3. Heard Mr. V. Seetharama Avadhani, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court lacks territorial jurisdiction on the premise that the alleged properties are situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is further argued that certain properties acquired prior to the amendment of the PMLA have been erroneously treated as “proceeds of crime,” and that no prima facie case exists to warrant continuation of the proceedings. On these grounds, it was urged that the complaint be returned for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

5. The trial Court, however, rejected the said contention observing that cognizance had already been taken in the year 2015 and summons had been issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C. It further noted that the petitioner had actively participated in the proceedings and had previously availed remedies, including filing discharge petitions. The petition under Section 201 Cr.P.C. was filed after an inordinate delay of nearly nine years from the date of taking cognizance. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devendra Kishanlal Dagala v. Dwarakesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 246, the trial Court held that once process is issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has no power to recall or review the order or to return the complaint under Section 201 Cr.P.C., and consequently dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement supported the impugned order, contending that the trial Court correctly appreciated both the factual matrix and the legal position. It is submitted that the belated challenge to jurisdiction is untenable and that no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity is made out warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. I have carefully perused the material on record and considered the submissions advanced on either side.

8. It is undisputed that cognizance in S.C. No. 109 of 2015 was taken in the year 2015 and that summons were duly issued. The petitioner not only entered appearance but also participated in the proceedings and invoked remedies available under law, including filing discharge applications. The present petition invoking Section 201 Cr.P.C. has been filed after an unexplained and substantial delay of nearly nine years.

9. The legal position governing the issue is well settled. Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. constitute a complete procedural framework regulating the stage of taking cognizance and issuance of process. Once a Magistrate ha