Kerala High Court
Asif Azad vs Muhammed Salim Ponnacham Thodi Alias ... on 5 August, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2025:KER:58220
W. A. No. 1820 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
TUESDAY, THE 5 DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1820 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.07.2025 IN WP(C) NO.42981 OF 2024 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ASIF AZAD, AGED 32 YEARS
DARUSSALAM, PARAYATHUKONAM P.O, KIZHUVILAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 695104
BY ADV ASIF AZAD(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MUHAMMED SALIM PONNACHAM THODI ALIAS MAMBI
PONNACHAM THODI, SALIM MANZIL, NELLAYA PO, MOSCO,
POTTACHIRA, PALAKKAD, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 679335
2 HABEEBULLAH POURA THODIYIL, POURATHODIYIL HOUSE, PARUTHUR
PO, KODIKUNNU PALAKKAD, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 679305
3 STATE POLICE CHIEF STATE POLICE, HEADQUARTERS,
VELLAYAMBALAM, CITY-THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA PIN - 695010
4 ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE (ED), REPRESENTED BY JOINT DIRECTOR,
SHENOYS, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 682011
5 NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (NIA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT
DIRECTOR, GIRINGAR HOUSING COLONY, GIRI NAGAR HOUSING
SOCIETY, GIRI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 682020
OTHER PRESENT:
SC-JAISHANKAR V NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.08.2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58220
W. A. No. 1820 of 2025 2
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
The appellant, appearing as a party-in-person, has preferred this Writ
Appeal challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 42981 of
2024 on the file of this Court.
2. From the narration of facts and events in the Writ Appeal, it is
evident that the appellant has previously approached this Court on multiple
occasions, seeking various forms of relief by filing several Writ Petitions. In
some of those cases, costs were imposed against him. As for the pleadings in
the present matter, less said the better. The appellant is currently residing in
Dubai and appears to have several grievances. He has assumed the role of
party-in-person, seemingly acquiring legal knowledge from online sources.
Although he has cited and reproduced several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it appears to us that he lacks an understanding of the basic legal
framework and procedural requirements.
3. In the present Writ Petition, the appellant sought a writ of
mandamus directing respondents 3, 4, or 5 to initiate an investigation against
respondents 1 and 2 for alleged violations of the Prevention of Money
2025:KER:58220
Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA for the sake of brevity) and the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA for the sake of brevity). He also sought a direction
to the said respondents to investigate the call history of respondents 1 and 2's
Dubai (UAE) mobile numbers to trace an individual named Fawas and establish
a purported connection with the D-Company.
4. The learned Single Judge, after evaluating the facts and
circumstances of the case, held that if the authorities concerned have not taken
action on the appellant's complaint, his proper remedy lies in approaching the
jurisdictional Magistrate by invoking appropriate provisions of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
5. We have heard Sri. Asif Azad, the appellant appearing virtually from
Dubai, Sri. Jayasankar V Nair, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent,
and the learned Government Pleader.
6. At the outset, it is important to note that although the appellant
claims to have lodged a complaint before the authorities, the copy of such
complaint has not been produced before this Court. The only material placed on
record is a letter dated 30.09.2024 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police (Admn.), indicating that the appellant's e-mail petition had been received
and forwarded to the District Police Chief, Palakkad.
2025:KER:58220
7. The appellant prays that directions be issued to the Enforcement
Directorate (ED) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take action
based on the complaint he purportedly lodged before the Crime Branch
Headquarters.
8. Admittedly, no crime has been registered in connection with a
scheduled offence under the PMLA or UAPA against the respondents 1 and 2
either at the instance of the appellant nor any other person. For an offence
under Section 3 of the PMLA to arise, there must be unlawful acquisition of
property derived from specific criminal activities termed as "scheduled offences."
The Act restricts the Directorate's powers to initiate action solely on the basis of
suspicion or conjecture. Mere allegations or assumptions that an individual may
have committed a scheduled offence do not suffice. A scheduled offence must
first be reported, registered as a crime through an FIR, and be either under
investigation or pending trial. Only upon such legal foundation can proceedings
under the PMLA be triggered. In the present case, since no crime has been
registered based on a scheduled offence, no direction can be issued to the
Enforcement Directorate to register an ECIR or to initiate any investigation.
9. With respect to the prayer for issuance of directions to the NIA, it is
relevant to note that under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the NIA
2025:KER:58220
W. A. No. 1820 of 2025 5
is empowered to investigate and prosecute only those offences which affect the
sovereignty, security, and integrity of the nation and are specified as scheduled
offences under the Act. It is only when a scheduled offence is registered at any
police station that the Officer-in-Charge is required to forward the report to the
State Government, which in turn must forward it to the Central Government. It
is then for the Central Government to assess whether the offence qualifies as a
scheduled offence and whether, given its gravity and other relevant
considerations, it should be investigated by the NIA. The Central Government
also has the power to suo motu direct the NIA to take over such an
investigation. In the absence of any such procedure being followed or any such
determination by the Central Government, no direction can be issued by this
Court to the NIA. In the case on hand no crime is seen registered against the
respondents 1 and 2 based on the allegations levelled by the appellant for any
scheduled offence.
10. In R. Madhavan Pillai v. Rajendran Unnithan S & Ors1., the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that this Court cannot pass a drastic direction
to the Enforcement Directorate to register an ECIR merely because it has prima
facie formed an opinion that a predicate offence may exist.
[Order dated 3.3.2025 in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).3530-3531 OF 2025]
2025:KER:58220
11. In that view of the matter, none of the reliefs sought for by the
petitioner can be granted.
The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
Sbna/
