[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
V.Gopala Reddy vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 30 March, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
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-
NTR,J
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
NTR,J
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.
NTR,J
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
has taken cognizance and issued process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the
Court becomes functus officio insofar as reconsideration of that stage is
concerned. It is impermissible for the Court thereafter to invoke Section
201 Cr.P.C. to return the complaint.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devendra Kishanlal Dagala (supra)
has categorically held that after issuance of process, the Magistrate lacks
the jurisdiction to recall or review such order. The appropriate remedy
available to an aggrieved accused is to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of
the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. In the present case, the trial Court has rightly concluded that the
petition under Section 201 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable at a post-
cognizance stage. Moreover, objections relating to territorial jurisdiction in
criminal proceedings must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity.
The petitioner, having participated in the proceedings for several years
without demur, cannot now be permitted to raise such objections at a
belated stage through an inapplicable provision.
NTR,J
12. With regard to the contention concerning jurisdiction under the
PMLA, it is pertinent to note that the offence of money laundering is a
distinct and independent offence, separate from the scheduled offence.
The offence is of a continuing nature, involving the process or activity
connected with proceeds of crime, including concealment, possession,
acquisition, or use thereof as untainted property. Judicial
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have consistently
recognized this distinct character of the offence under the PMLA.
13. Therefore, merely because certain properties are situated in
another State does not ipso facto oust the jurisdiction of the Special
Court, particularly when the complaint discloses a continuing offence
involving proceeds of crime and their projection as untainted assets.
14. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petition under Section 201 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable
after cognizance has been taken and process issued under Section 204
Cr.P.C.; the trial Court correctly held that it lacks the power to recall or
return the complaint at such a stage; the objection regarding territorial
jurisdiction has been raised belatedly and is not tenable; and no
jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity is demonstrated in the
impugned order warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
NTR,J
15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.02.2024 is hereby
upheld, and the Criminal Petition stands dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 30.03.2026
svl
