Madras High Court
G.Ganesan vs The Deputy Director on 9 July, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
Crl.O.P.No.19621 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Crl.O.P.No.19621 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.13402 & 13491 of 2025
G.Ganesan ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Ministry of Finance,
Chennai Zonal Office-II,
B-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006. ...Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying to call for the
entire records pertaining to the impugned proceedings dated 23.06.2025 in
C.C.No.9 of 2023 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge cum
Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
Chennai, pertaining to opening of case of prosecution by Special Public
Prosecutor and to quash the same, in view of the pendency of the predicate
offence cases in C.C.No.24 of 2021 and C.C.No.25 of 2021, pending on the
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:50:22 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.19621 of 2025
file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases relating to MPs/MLAs, Chennai,
which are at the summons stage.
For Petitioner : Dr.S.Muralidhar, Senior Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil,
Special Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
On the basis of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR)
recorded by the Enforcement Directorate, a complaint was lodged against
Mr.V.Senthil Balaji, which was taken on file in C.C.No.9 of 2023. When the
trial was in progress in this case, the Enforcement Directorate had filed a
supplementary complaint against Mr.Ashok Kumar and 12 others, including
the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as Accused No.5, on the ground that
these accused persons were also involved in the said offence.
2. In the light of the decision of the High Court of Tenlangana at
Hyderabad in the case of V.Vijay Sai Reddy Vs. Enforcement Directorate
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1604, the petitioner claimed that the
offence of money laundering cannot precede the scheduled offence and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:50:22 pm )
therefore, since the Special Court, trying the offence of money laundering,
requires to take a pause and await the ultimate pronouncement/decision of
the Special Court trying the scheduled offence, he had filed a petition under
Section 346 of BNSS (Section 304 of Cr.P.C.), seeking for deferment of the
trial in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case, until
completion of the trial in the predicate offences. However, the Special Court
had returned this petition questioning its maintainability, aggrieved against
which, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
emphatically placed reliance on V.Vijay Sai Reddy's case (supra) and
submitted that, without pronouncement of judgment in the predicate offence,
the trial in the money laundering case should not be allowed to proceed. He
also raised certain grounds questioning the action of the Special Court in
taking cognizance of the supplementary complaint.
4. Since we are of the view that it would be appropriate for the Special
Court to consider the issue as to whether the proceedings under the PMLA,
should be continued or deferred, we deem it appropriate to direct the Special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:50:22 pm )
Court to take the miscellaneous petition seeking for deferment of
proceedings on file for adjudication. We hasten to add here that there cannot
be any legal embargo for the Special Court to take the petition for deferment
on its file. However, since the petitioner appears to have some grievance on
the Special Court in having taken cognizance of the supplementary
complaint, the ends of justice could be secured, if the petitioner herein is
granted liberty to challenge such an action before this Court.
5. In the light of the above observations and findings, the petitioner is
granted liberty to re-present the miscellaneous petition filed by him under
Section 346 of BNSS, seeking for deferment of the PMLA proceedings and
on such re-presentation, the Special Court shall take the same on file,
adjudicate it and pass final orders in accordance with law, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of the miscellaneous petition. Till such
time, the Special Court shall not proceed further on its action of taking
cognizance of the supplementary complaint. The petitioner is also granted
liberty to challenge the action of the Special Court in taking cognizance of
the supplementary complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate, before
this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:50:22 pm )
6. With the above directions and liberty, the Criminal Original Petition
stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]
09.07.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
hvk
Note: Issue order copy on 10.07.2025
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
2.The Special Court
for Trial of Cases relating to MPs/MLAs,
Chennai.
3.The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Ministry of Finance,
Chennai Zonal Office-II,
B-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.
4.The Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:50:22 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
hvk
09.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:50:22 pm )
