LawcurbLawcurbTMLegal Intelligence. Simplified.

Parvinder Singhv.Directorate of Enforcement

Citation:
2026 INSC 519
Date:
4 June 2026
Reading time:
15 min read

Legal Analysis: Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2026 INSC 519

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date of Decision: May 19, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12055 of 2025 against the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand dated 19.05.2025.


Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on 27.04.2024. A prosecution complaint under the PMLA was filed before the Special Court on 24.06.2024. The Special Court directed the complaint to be numbered and fixed it for hearing on cognizance on 28.06.2024, which was adjourned to 02.07.2024. The BNSS came into force on 01.07.2024. On 02.07.2024, the Special Court took cognizance of the offence without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant filed an application for recall, which was dismissed. The High Court dismissed his revision petitions, holding that Section 531(2)(a) BNSS saved the proceedings under the CrPC since the complaint was filed before 01.07.2024. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that: (i) the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, which mandates giving the accused an opportunity of hearing before taking cognizance, is a substantive right flowing from Article 21; (ii) the mere filing of the complaint and numbering of the case does not constitute an “inquiry” under Section 2(1)(k) BNSS; (iii) the cognizance was taken after BNSS came into force, and therefore the BNSS applies; (iv) the decisions in Tarsem Lal, Yash Tuteja and Kushal Kumar Agarwal holding that Sections 200-205 CrPC (now Sections 223-228 BNSS) apply to PMLA complaints were reaffirmed; (v) the violation of the proviso vitiates the cognizance order, and no prejudice need be shown. The matter was remanded to the Special Court to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before taking cognizance.


1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2026 INSC 519

Criminal Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12055 of 2025

Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date of Decision: May 19, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment dated 19.05.2025 of the High Court of Uttarakhand in CRLR No. 218/2025 and CRLR No. 183/2025.


2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Section 43 (designation of Special Courts), Section 44 (offences triable by Special Courts – complaint can be filed without committal), Section 46 (application of CrPC/BNSS to proceedings before Special Court), Section 65 (CrPC/BNSS to apply insofar as not inconsistent), Section 71 (overriding effect of PMLA).

  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 2(1)(k) (definition of “inquiry”), Section 4 (trial of offences under other laws), Section 5 (saving of special laws), Section 210 (cognizance by Magistrate), Section 213 (cognizance by Court of Session – committal required unless otherwise provided), Section 223 (examination of complainant – first proviso requires opportunity of hearing to accused before taking cognizance), Section 531 (repeal and savings – pending proceedings under CrPC to continue).

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 200-205 (complaint procedure), Sections 207-209 (committal proceedings).

  • Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 (right to fair trial – includes right to be heard before cognizance).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

  • Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate (2024) 7 SCC 61 – Once a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA is filed, it is governed by Sections 200-205 CrPC as none of those provisions are inconsistent with PMLA; the Special Court must apply its mind under Section 203 CrPC (dismissal) or Section 204 CrPC (issue process); the accused is not automatically in custody.

  • Yash Tuteja v. Union of India (2024) 8 SCC 465 – Sections 200-204 CrPC apply to complaints under PMLA; the Special Court must consider whether a prima facie case is made out; there is no provision in PMLA overriding those provisions.

  • Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221 – Followed Tarsem Lal and Yash Tuteja; reiterated that the procedure under CrPC (now BNSS) applies to PMLA complaints.

  • Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 – The stage of ensuring compliance with Sections 207-209 CrPC is not an “inquiry” because there is no application of judicial mind; inquiry commences with the filing of the charge-sheet and consideration of material.

  • Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 1167 – Once cognizance is taken of an offence, the Magistrate has the duty to find out who the offenders are and can summon additional accused.


3. Relevant Facts

The appellant, Parvinder Singh, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on 27.04.2024. An ECIR was registered against him on 24.07.2023. Within two months of arrest, a prosecution complaint was filed by the ED under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA on 24.06.2024 before the designated Special Court. On the same day, the Special Court directed the complaint to be registered as a miscellaneous case and fixed it for hearing on cognizance on 28.06.2024.

On 28.06.2024, since the Presiding Officer was on recess, the matter was adjourned to 02.07.2024. The BNSS came into force on 01.07.2024, replacing the CrPC.

On 02.07.2024, the Special Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA, recording that sufficient material was available. The appellant was produced from judicial custody via video conferencing. The Special Court then re-registered the miscellaneous case as Special Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2024.

On 24.12.2024, the appellant filed an application for recall of the cognizance order, contending that the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS had been violated as he was not given an opportunity of hearing before cognizance was taken. The Special Court dismissed the application on 22.03.2025, holding that the application was a dilatory tactic and that once cognizance was taken, the same court could not reconsider it. The Special Court also framed charges on the same day.

The appellant filed two criminal revisions before the High Court of Uttarakhand: one challenging the cognizance order (CRLR No. 218/2025) and another challenging the order dismissing the recall application (CRLR No. 183/2025). The High Court, by judgment dated 19.05.2025, dismissed CRLR No. 218/2025, holding that Section 531(2)(a) BNSS saved the proceedings under the CrPC because the complaint was filed prior to the commencement of BNSS. The High Court partly allowed CRLR No. 183/2025 by quashing the charges framed and remanding for fresh hearing on charge.

Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.


4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which requires that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by a Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard, applies to a prosecution complaint filed under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA.

Issue No. 2: Whether the proceedings under the PMLA are saved by Section 531(2)(a) BNSS on the ground that an “inquiry” had commenced prior to 01.07.2024 (the date of commencement of BNSS), thereby requiring the continued application of the CrPC.

Issue No. 3: What is the consequence of non-compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS – whether it is a mere irregularity curable under Sections 506/511 BNSS or an illegality vitiating the cognizance order.

Issue No. 4: Whether the decisions in Tarsem Lal, Yash Tuteja and Kushal Kumar Agarwal require reconsideration.


5. Ratio Decidendi

A. The provisions of Sections 223 to 228 BNSS (corresponding to Sections 200-205 CrPC) apply to complaints under PMLA (Paras 30-33).

The Court reaffirmed the settled position in Tarsem Lal, Yash Tuteja and Kushal Kumar Agarwal that once a complaint is filed under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA, the provisions of the CrPC (now BNSS) governing complaints apply, as none of those provisions are inconsistent with the PMLA. Section 46 PMLA makes the Special Court a deemed Court of Session and applies the CrPC/BNSS. Section 65 PMLA applies CrPC/BNSS insofar as not inconsistent. The learned ASG’s submission that these decisions require reconsideration was rejected. The Court held that if the complaint procedure were not applicable, the Special Court would have no power to dismiss a complaint, postpone issue of process, issue process, or dispense with appearance of the accused – consequences that would be “disastrous”.

B. The first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS is substantive and mandatory, not merely procedural (Paras 26-27).

The Court held that the proviso confers a right upon the accused to be heard before taking cognizance. This right forms a part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The word “shall” in the proviso is mandatory. Cognizance taken without giving such opportunity is void ab initio. The non-compliance is not a mere irregularity under Sections 506 or 511 BNSS but an illegality vitiating the entire proceeding.

C. The mere filing of the complaint and numbering of the case does not constitute an “inquiry” under Section 2(1)(k) BNSS (Paras 35-36).

The Court examined the definition of “inquiry” in Section 2(1)(k) BNSS – it means every inquiry other than a trial conducted by a Magistrate or Court. Relying on Hardeep Singh, the Court held that the stage of ensuring compliance with Sections 207-209 CrPC (or equivalent provisions) is not an inquiry because there is no application of judicial mind. The direction to number the complaint and post the matter for hearing on cognizance does not involve judicial application of mind; it is a ministerial act. Therefore, no “inquiry” had commenced prior to 01.07.2024. Hence, Section 531(2)(a) BNSS, which saves pending proceedings under the CrPC, has no application. Since cognizance was taken on 02.07.2024, after BNSS came into force, the BNSS applies.

D. Prejudice need not be shown when a mandatory substantive right is violated (Para 37).

The learned ASG argued that the appellant had not shown any prejudice. The Court rejected this, holding that the right to be heard before cognizance is a fundamental facet of fair trial. Its violation is not a technical irregularity; it goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance. The order taking cognizance without hearing the accused is void ab initio.

E. The impugned order and the cognizance order set aside; remand for fresh hearing (Paras 38-40).

The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and the Special Court’s cognizance order dated 02.07.2024. The Special Court was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before taking cognizance, and to complete the exercise within eight weeks.


6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

  • The first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS (requiring the accused to be heard before taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint) is not merely procedural but substantive. It confers a right that is part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21. The word “shall” is mandatory, and non-compliance renders the cognizance order void.

  • The mere filing of a complaint and its numbering by the court does not constitute an “inquiry” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(k) BNSS. For an “inquiry” to have commenced, there must be application of judicial mind by the court. Ministerial acts such as numbering a case and posting it for hearing do not amount to an inquiry.

  • Section 531(2)(a) BNSS saves only those proceedings where an “inquiry” (as defined) had actually commenced under the CrPC before 01.07.2024. If only a complaint has been filed but no judicial consideration has taken place, the BNSS applies.

  • The decisions in Tarsem Lal, Yash Tuteja and Kushal Kumar Agarwal are affirmed. The procedure under Sections 223-228 BNSS (formerly Sections 200-205 CrPC) applies to complaints filed under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA. The Special Court cannot take cognizance without following that procedure, including giving the accused an opportunity of hearing as required by the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS.

  • The PMLA does not override the complaint procedure under the BNSS because there is no inconsistency between the PMLA and the BNSS on this point. Section 71 PMLA (overriding effect) applies only when there is an inconsistency.


7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

The Court first examined the relevant provisions of the PMLA and BNSS. It noted that Section 46 PMLA makes the Special Court a deemed Court of Session and applies the CrPC/BNSS. Section 44(1)(b) PMLA allows the ED to file a complaint directly before the Special Court without committal. Section 65 PMLA applies CrPC/BNSS insofar as not inconsistent. The learned ASG argued that PMLA is a special statute and Section 71 gives it overriding effect, so the BNSS provisions should not apply.

The Court rejected this argument, holding that there is no inconsistency between the PMLA and the BNSS complaint procedure. The BNSS provisions (Sections 223-228) regulate the manner in which a court takes cognizance on a complaint – they do not conflict with any specific provision of the PMLA. Therefore, Section 71 PMLA does not displace the BNSS.

The Court then considered the applicability of Section 531(2)(a) BNSS. The High Court had held that since the complaint was filed on 24.06.2024, before BNSS came into force, the CrPC continued to apply. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the saving provision applies only when an “inquiry” had already commenced. Relying on Hardeep Singh, the Court observed that the mere filing of a complaint and its numbering is not an inquiry – there is no judicial mind applied. The direction to list the case for hearing on cognizance is a ministerial act. The cognizance itself was taken after BNSS came into force. Therefore, the BNSS applied.

The Court then analysed the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS. It held that the proviso is mandatory. The appellant was not heard before cognizance was taken. This violated his right to a fair trial under Article 21. The fact that the appellant was in judicial custody and was produced before the court does not amount to being heard on the question of whether cognizance should be taken.

The Court rejected the argument that no prejudice was shown. It held that violation of a substantive right does not require proof of prejudice; the order itself is void. The Court set aside the cognizance order and remanded the matter.


8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a robust affirmation of the right to be heard before a court takes cognizance of an offence. It correctly characterises the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS as substantive and mandatory, not a mere formality. The distinction between a ministerial act (numbering and listing) and an inquiry (application of judicial mind) is sound and prevents the saving clause from being misused to perpetuate old procedures. The reaffirmation of Tarsem Lal, Yash Tuteja and Kushal Kumar Agarwal provides clarity and consistency in PMLA proceedings. The rejection of the “prejudice” argument is important – it ensures that courts do not condone procedural violations by asking the accused to show harm that may be difficult to prove.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly discuss the possibility that the accused might not have any meaningful submission to make at the stage of cognizance, especially when the complaint is supported by a charge-sheet and the court has to only decide whether a prima facie case exists. However, the Court’s view is that the opportunity to be heard is a right in itself, not contingent on the likelihood of success. Another concern is that the judgment does not address the situation where the accused is a fugitive or cannot be located; the proviso would then become unworkable. However, the Court’s reasoning is limited to cases where the accused is available and in custody.

Practical impact: This judgment will have a significant impact on all pending PMLA complaints where cognizance was taken after 01.07.2024 without hearing the accused. Such cognizance orders may be challenged and set aside. It will also apply to complaints under other special laws that follow the complaint procedure. The judgment reiterates the mandatory nature of pre-cognizance hearing and will likely lead to a large number of remand applications.


9. Final Outcome

The Criminal Appeal was allowed.

  • The impugned judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand dated 19.05.2025 was set aside.

  • The order taking cognizance by the Special Court dated 02.07.2024 was set aside.

  • The Special Court was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before taking cognizance, and to complete the exercise within eight weeks from the receipt of a copy of the judgment.

  • The appeal was allowed accordingly.

  • Pending applications stood disposed of.


10. Practical Application

For an accused in a PMLA case where cognizance was taken after 01.07.2024 without hearing: Immediately file an application for recall of the cognizance order before the Special Court, citing this judgment and the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS. Argue that the cognizance order is void ab initio. If the Special Court dismisses the application, file a revision before the High Court or an appeal before the Supreme Court. Ensure that the application is filed at the earliest opportunity to avoid delay being used against you.

For a Special Court dealing with a PMLA complaint: Before taking cognizance under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA, after the BNSS came into force, comply with the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS. Give the accused (if available) an opportunity of being heard on the question whether cognizance should be taken. This does not require a full-fledged hearing; a brief opportunity to submit that the complaint does not disclose a prima facie case may suffice. If the accused is not available (e.g., absconding), the court may proceed after recording reasons.

For the Enforcement Directorate (ED): When filing a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA, be prepared for the Special Court to issue notice to the accused before taking cognizance. This may cause a slight delay but will make the cognizance order more robust. If the accused is in judicial custody, produce him/her before the court and inform the court of the requirement of the proviso. The ED should not oppose the grant of a hearing to the accused.

For a lawyer advising an accused in a PMLA case: If cognizance has already been taken, examine the date of the cognizance order. If it is after 01.07.2024 and you were not heard, move an application for recall. If the cognizance order was before 01.07.2024, the BNSS does not apply, and you must challenge under the CrPC. However, the principle that the accused should be heard before cognizance was not explicitly provided in the CrPC, so you may have to rely on broader principles of natural justice.

For a High Court dealing with a revision against a cognizance order in a PMLA case: Determine the date of cognizance. If after 01.07.2024, examine whether the accused was given an opportunity of hearing. If not, set aside the cognizance order and remand for fresh consideration. Do not uphold the order on the ground that no prejudice was shown. Also, examine whether the complaint was filed before 01.07.2024 but cognizance was taken after; if no “inquiry” had commenced before 01.07.2024 (i.e., no judicial mind applied), the BNSS applies.


11.  Court Lines

Line 1 (Substantive right – Para 27):
“Though Chapter XVI of the BNSS lays down the procedural law dealing with complaints made to a Magistrate, we hold that the aforesaid proviso is substantive in nature, as it does not merely regulate the manner in which the proceedings are to be conducted, rather it confers a right upon the accused to be heard before taking cognizance which forms a part of the right of an accused to a fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.”

Line 2 (Mandatory – Para 27):
“We further hold that the word 'shall' occurring in the said proviso has to be construed to be mandatory in nature, which ensures to the benefit of an accused. Resultantly, cognizance of an offence taken by a Court without due compliance of the aforestated proviso would be void ab initio.”

Line 3 (Saving clause not applicable – Para 36):
“As rightly held by this Court in Hardeep Singh (supra), even the stage of ensuring compliance with Sections 207 to 209 of the CrPC, 1973 cannot be termed as an inquiry because there is no application of judicial mind. In the facts of the instant case, the direction issued by the Special Court, vide order dated 24.06.2024, to number the complaint and, thereafter, post the matter on a future date for hearing on cognizance would certainly not come within the purview of an 'inquiry' under Section 2(1)(k) of the BNSS.”

Line 4 (Prejudice irrelevant – Para 37):
“The contention of the learned ASG that prejudice caused due to non-hearing at the stage of cognizance will have to be shown by the accused cannot be accepted, as it is not a mere irregularity that would attract either Section 506 or 511 of the BNSS, but is an illegality that would vitiate the very proceedings.”

Line 5 (Affirmation of earlier judgments – Para 31):
“The submission of the learned ASG that the earlier decision of this Court in Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra) will have to be reconsidered and, therefore, be referred to a larger Bench cannot be countenanced. Taking away the applicability of the provisions governing a complaint under Sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC (now Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS) to the proceedings under the PMLA, including the one that has a serious bearing not only on the right of the accused but also on the power of the Court, would lead to disastrous consequences.”

Line 6 (Remand – Para 40):
“The Special Court is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant by proceeding from the stage of taking cognizance. The aforestated exercise must be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”


12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a petitioner (accused) in a PMLA case: As soon as you become aware that cognizance has been taken without giving you an opportunity of hearing, file an application for recall. Attach a copy of this judgment. Argue that the cognizance order is void ab initio. Do not wait for the trial to progress. If the Special Court dismisses your application, file a revision or an SLP. Also argue that the filing of the complaint before 01.07.2024 does not save the proceedings because no inquiry had commenced. The numbering of the complaint is a ministerial act, not an inquiry.

For a respondent (ED) defending a cognizance order: If the cognizance was taken after 01.07.2024, you may still argue that the accused was given a hearing in some form (e.g., if the accused was produced and the court asked if he had anything to say). However, if there is no record of hearing, you may concede the point and seek a remand rather than contest. Contesting a clear violation may lead to adverse costs. Also, you can argue that the prejudice must be shown, but after this judgment, that argument will not succeed. The better strategy is to agree to a remand and have the Special Court take cognizance afresh after hearing the accused, which will cure the defect.

For a court (Special Court) dealing with a PMLA complaint after BNSS: Before taking cognizance, follow this checklist: (i) Has the complaint been numbered? (ii) Is the accused available? If yes, issue notice or produce the accused (if in custody). (iii) Give the accused a brief opportunity to argue why cognizance should not be taken. (iv) After hearing, pass a reasoned order either taking cognizance or dismissing the complaint under Section 223(2) BNSS (which corresponds to Section 203 CrPC). (v) If you take cognizance, then proceed to issue process under Section 224 BNSS (corresponding to Section 204 CrPC). This procedure will make the cognizance order unassailable.

For a lawyer drafting a petition challenging a cognizance order: Structure the petition as follows: (i) State the date of filing of the complaint, the dates of orders, and the date of cognizance. (ii) Show that cognizance was taken after 01.07.2024. (iii) Show that no opportunity of hearing was given to the accused. (iv) Cite the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS and this judgment. (v) Argue that the order is void ab initio. (vi) If the cognizance order is prior to 01.07.2024 but you still want to challenge, note that the BNSS does not apply; you must rely on the CrPC and natural justice principles. However, the CrPC did not have an express provision for pre-cognizance hearing, so the challenge may be more difficult.

For a legal researcher or law student: Note the distinction between the CrPC and BNSS on this point. Under the CrPC, there was no express requirement to hear the accused before taking cognizance on a police report or a complaint (except in cases where the Magistrate issues a warrant under Section 204 and perhaps under Section 200 for complaint cases). The BNSS has introduced a significant change in the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, making pre-cognizance hearing mandatory for all complaints. This is a major procedural reform aimed at protecting the rights of the accused. This judgment interprets that proviso as substantive and mandatory, and applies it to PMLA complaints.

View full judgment (PDF)