Authority: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital

Order Date: 15 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar, Managing Director of M/s RMS Techno Solution Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
  • Respondents: Union of India and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
  • Nature of Petition: Criminal writ petition under Article 226 seeking (I) certiorari to quash search proceedings dated 10‑09‑2026 and 25‑09‑2026 and the summons dated 21‑09‑2026 issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA); (II) mandamus to restrain further coercive measures.
  • Background: Multiple FIRs, including FIR No. 289 of 2022, were lodged at Police Station Raipur, Dehradun, concerning alleged leakage of the UKSSSC graduate‑level examination 2021. The FIRs were treated as scheduled offences under PMLA. The ED registered ECIR/DNSZO/06/2022 under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA. Initial searches under Section 17 were conducted at several premises, including the petitioner’s residence, leading to freezing of his accounts with HDFC and AXIS Bank and issuance of a Section 50 summons, which the petitioner complied with.
  • Prosecution Complaint: The ED filed Prosecution Complaint No. 69 of 2024 before the Special Court, Dehradun, which took cognizance of the case.
  • Subsequent Searches: After the complaint, the ED conducted a second search on 10‑09‑2026 at the same residence, seizing two bank lockers and an iPhone; a fresh Section 50 summons was issued. A further search on 24‑09‑2026 resulted in seizure of a PNB locker on 25‑09‑2026.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: The petitioner argued that the post‑complaint searches amounted to “ever‑greening” of investigation, violated Articles 14 and 21, and required prior permission of the Special Court under Section 193 of the BNSS, 2023. He contended that the “reason to believe” standard under Section 17 was not satisfied.
  • Respondent’s Contentions: The ED asserted that the petitioner, as MD of RMS Techno Solution (accused No. 10) and the company (accused No. 11), was involved in the paper leak. The ED cited Section 44(1) explanation (ii) of PMLA, upheld in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) 10 SCC 386, allowing further investigation and interrogation under Section 50 even after filing of a complaint. The ED emphasized that each search was authorized by a Deputy Director under Section 17, with reasons recorded in writing and forwarded in a sealed cover. It also noted that only ₹11 lakhs of the alleged ₹65 lakhs proceeds had been recovered.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The Court recognized the petitioner’s argument that unrestricted post‑complaint searches could undermine statutory safeguards, but held that the statute itself (Section 44(1) explanation (ii) of PMLA) expressly permits further investigation after a complaint is filed.

2. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments (Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement v. Gautam Kundu & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2024; Bhupesh Kumar Baghel v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (Crl.) No. 301 of 2025) affirming that the Enforcement Directorate may record additional evidence during trial.

3. While agreeing that Section 17 powers are not unbridled, the Court found that each search was duly authorized by a Deputy Director, with written reasons submitted to the adjudicating authority, satisfying the safeguards highlighted in Vijay Madanlal.

4. Regarding Section 193 BNSS, the Court clarified that prior court permission is required only after the trial commences (i.e., after framing of charges). Since charges had not yet been framed, the ED was not obligated to obtain such permission.

5. The Court also noted that the cognizance order in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2050 of 2026 was set aside on a limited ground, but this did not affect the validity of the subsequent searches.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed in its entirety.
  • No order is made to quash the searches or to restrain the respondents.

Topics: Money Laundering, PMLA Enforcement