Kun Tyres India Pvt Ltd., vs The Assistant Director
- Court
- Madras High Court
Crl.O.P.No.32313 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
CRL OP No. 32313 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012556052026}
1. Kun Tyres India Pvt Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
R.Ravichandran, J21, J22, SIPCOT, Perundurai
Industrial Growth Centre, Erode, Tamil Nadu
2. R.Ravichandran
No.468/11, Silver Lane Apartment,
Bhavani Main Road, Kandham Palayam Pirivu,
Perundurai, Erode, Tamil Nadu.
3. K.Shanmugam Petitioners
Vs
The Assistant Director
Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Chennai Zone-II, 3rd Floor, Tower-II, BSNL
Administrative Building, Greams Road, Chennai. Respondent
Petition filed to quash the proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.14 of 2025 pending on
the file of the Additional Special Judge, IX Additional Judge CBI, Chennai.
For Petitioners Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar
For Respondent Mr.P.Sidharthan,
Special Public Prosecutor
ORDER
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:52:31 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.32313 of 2026
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the
order of the trial court taking cognizance of the complaint dated
07.10.2025, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
as contemplated under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagari
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. The only submission to challenge the order taking cognizance
is that it is directly in the teeth of the order passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of
1
Enforcement . Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme
Court, no cognizance could be taken without giving notice to the
petitioner, as the complaint itself was filed on 09.01.2020, after coming
into force of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, relying
upon the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:52:31 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.32313 of 2026
2
Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and a
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of G.Ganesan
v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of
3
Finance submits that since in the present case the ECIR was
registered prior to coming into force of the BNSS with effect from
01.07.2024, further proceedings shall be governed by the repealed
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as per the provisions contained in
Section 531 of the BNSS.
5. In the case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra), their
Lordships in the Supreme Court have authoritatively enunciated the
legal position in this regard as below:
“3. In the present case, a complaint was filed under
Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the PMLA”) on August 2,
2024. The appellant is shown as accused in the complaint.
The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as “the BNSS”) came into force on July 1, 2024.
Section 223 of the BNSS reads thus:
‘223. Examination of complainant.
(1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking
cognizance of an offence on complaint shall
examine upon oath the complainant and the
witnesses present, if any, and the substance of
2
Crl. Rev. No.218 of 2025, dated 19.05.2025
3
2025 SCC OnLine Mad 11885
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:52:31 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.32313 of 2026
such examination shall be reduced to writing and
shall be signed by the complainant and the
witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:
Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be
taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused
an opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that when the complaint is made
in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the
complainant and the witnesses-
(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in
the discharge of his official duties or a Court has
made the complaint; or
(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for
inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section
212;
Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the
case to another Magistrate under section 212 after
examining the complainant and the witnesses, the
latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.’
4. Section 223 of the BNSS corresponds to Section
200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the CrPC’). However, a proviso similar to the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 does not find place
in Section 200 of the CrPC.
5. This Court has taken a consistent view that a
complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under
Section 44 (1)(b) of the PMLA will be governed by Sections
200 to 204 of the CrPC. This view has been taken by this
Court in the cases of Yash Tuteja v. Union of India, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 533 and Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate,
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:52:31 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.32313 of 2026
(2024) 7 SCC 61. Therefore, the provisions of Chapter XVI,
containing Sections 223 to 226, will also apply to a
complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA. As the complaint
st
has been filed after 1 July, 2024, Section 223 of the BNSS
will apply to the present complaint.
6. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 puts an
embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance by
providing that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by
the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of
being heard.”
6. The legal position, therefore, is clear that proviso to sub-
section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS puts an embargo on the power
of the Court to take cognizance by providing that no cognizance of an
offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an
opportunity of being heard. This conclusion was derived by the Apex
Court on the finding that a complaint filed by the Enforcement
Directorate under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 (PMLA) will be governed by Sections 200 to 204 of the
Cr.P.C., relying upon the earlier decisions in the cases of Yash Tuteja
4 5
v. Union of India and Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate .
Therefore the provision of Chapter XVI containing Sections 223 to 226
will also apply to a complaint under Section 44 of PMLA. In a case
4
2024 SCC OnLine SC 533
5
(2024) 7 SCC 61
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:52:31 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.32313 of 2026
where a complaint has been filed after 01.07.2024, Section 223 of
BNSS will become applicable.
7. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the
respondent dealt with different factual premise. The decision in the
case of G.Ganesan (supra) has been assailed by filing SLP in the
Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.21147/2025 and an interim order has
been passed on 05.01.2026. The judgment of the High Court of
Uttarkhand in Parvinder Singh (supra) has been set aside by the
Supreme Court in Parvinder Singh vs. Directorate of
Enforcement, 2026 INSC 519.
8. Be that as it may, in view of the clear enunciation of law by
the Supreme Court in the case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra), the
impugned order taking cognizance without issuing notice to the
petitioner is per se illegal and impermissible in law.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 07.10.20205 taking cognizance in
Spl.CC.No.14 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Special
Judge, IX Additional Judge, CBI, Chennai, is set aside. The complaint is
restored to its original file number and the Court concerned shall
proceed in accordance with law.
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:52:31 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.32313 of 2026
10. The Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed in terms
aforesaid. Consequently, Crl.M.P. Nos.21268 and 21269 of 2026 are
closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
11.11.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tar
To
1. The Assistant Director
Directorate of Enforcement,
Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Chennai Zone-II, 3rd Floor, Tower-II,
BSNL Administrative Building,
Greams Road, Chennai.
2. The Additional Special Judge,
IX Additional Judge CBI, Chennai
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:52:31 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.32313 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN , J.
(tar)
Crl.O.P.No.32313 of 2026
11.11.2026
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:52:31 pm )