Rouse Avenue Court declines cognisance in National Herald case, says money-laundering prosecution unsustainable without FIR

New Delhi [India], December 16 (ANI): A Delhi court on Tuesday declined to take cognisance of the Enforcement Directorate's prosecution complaint in the National Herald money-laundering case, holding that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are not maintainable in the absence of an FIR for the scheduled (predicate) offence.
In a detailed order, Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts ruled that an investigation and prosecution for the offence of money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA cannot be sustained when the case is founded solely on a private complaint and a summoning order, rather than on a duly registered FIR.
The court held that the investigative potential of an FIR is qualitatively superior to a complaint case under Section 200 CrPC (now Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), and that registration of an FIR in the scheduled offence is a foundational jurisdictional requirement for the ED to initiate money-laundering proceedings, register an ECIR and file a prosecution complaint.
The court stated that the ED's complaint against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and others was based on a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the summoning order passed on it in 2014, and not on any FIR. It held that such a complaint cannot substitute the statutory requirement of an FIR under the PMLA framework.
Relying on statutory provisions of the PMLA, the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, and FATF principles, the court reiterated that an FIR in the predicate offence is a sine qua non for sustaining a money-laundering prosecution. It also recorded that the requirement of an FIR has been the consistent stand of the ED before various authorities.
While declining cognisance, the court clarified that it was not examining the merits of the allegations. It noted that a subsequent FIR was registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi, on October 3, 2025, during the pendency of the proceedings, and held that the ED and EOW are free to pursue investigations in accordance with law. However, the present prosecution complaint, as filed, was held to be legally unsustainable.
Reacting to the order, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi termed the ruling a "deserved victory" and called the case the "strangest ever." In a post on X, Singhvi said the trial court did not even find it fit to take cognisance, despite allegations of massive money laundering, even though there was no movement of money or transfer of immovable property.
Singhvi pointed out that Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) is now owned by Young Indian, a not-for-profit company that cannot distribute dividends, profits or perks, and accused the ruling dispensation of indulging in exaggeration and propaganda.
During earlier hearings, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Sonia Gandhi, while Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema represented Rahul Gandhi. Advocates Sumit Kumar and Nikhil Bhalla also appeared for the Gandhi family. Advocate Sushil Bajaj represented Suman Dubey, Senior Advocate Madhav Khurana appeared for Young Indian, and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju represented the Enforcement Directorate.
The court reiterated that the accused have a statutory right to be heard before cognisance under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The matter has been listed for January 16, 2026. (ANI)