101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Surender Panwar Directorate Of Enforcement CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sajal Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special counsel, (through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel counsel for the respondent TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed 09.12.2024, Annexure P Ambala, in complaint case Directorate of Enforcement Enforcement case Information Report, i.e. 23.09.2023, under Sections 65 of PMLA, 2002 read with Section 187(3) BNSS, 2023, registered by the Gurugram Zonal office of the Directorate of Enforcement. 2. Learned senior counsel contend 23.09.2023, and the complaint on that basis was filed on 16.09.2024 before the trial Court. In terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) 2766 of 2025 titled Kushal Kumar Agarwal mandatory for the Court to issue notice to the petitioner under proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS before taking cognizance, which has not been done. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26482- Date of Decision :21.05.2025 Surender Panwar Versus Directorate Of Enforcement HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sajal Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special counsel, (through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel counsel for the respondent-ED. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 09.12.2024, Annexure P-6, passed by the Special Judge (PMLA), Haryana at in complaint case no.COMA/5/2024 dated 16.09.2024 titled Directorate of Enforcement v. Surender Panwar and others nforcement case Information Report, i.e., under Sections 65 of PMLA, 2002 read with Section 187(3) BNSS, registered by the Gurugram Zonal office of the Directorate of Learned senior counsel contends that 23.09.2023, and the complaint on that basis was filed on 16.09.2024 before the trial Court. In terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) 2766 Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement mandatory for the Court to issue notice to the petitioner under proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS before taking cognizance, which has not been done. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA -2025 Date of Decision :21.05.2025 …Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special counsel, Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel counsel, for setting aside the order dated 6, passed by the Special Judge (PMLA), Haryana at no.COMA/5/2024 dated 16.09.2024 titled Surender Panwar and others, arising out of ECIR/GNZO/19/2023 DATED under Sections 65 of PMLA, 2002 read with Section 187(3) BNSS, registered by the Gurugram Zonal office of the Directorate of s that the ECIR was registered on 23.09.2023, and the complaint on that basis was filed on 16.09.2024 before the trial Court. In terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) 2766 Directorate of Enforcement, it is mandatory for the Court to issue notice to the petitioner under proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS before taking cognizance, which has not been done. for setting aside the order dated 6, passed by the Special Judge (PMLA), Haryana at no.COMA/5/2024 dated 16.09.2024 titled arising out of /GNZO/19/2023 DATED under Sections 65 of PMLA, 2002 read with Section 187(3) BNSS, registered by the Gurugram Zonal office of the Directorate of ECIR was registered on 23.09.2023, and the complaint on that basis was filed on 16.09.2024 before the trial Court. In terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) 2766 , it is mandatory for the Court to issue notice to the petitioner under proviso to PUSHPINDER SAINI 2025.05.26 18:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26482- 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, fairly concedes that pre petitioner under proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS been filed after 01.07.2024. 4. In view there directing the PMLA Court to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in terms of of two months of receiving 5. Accordingly, the petition May 21, 2025 ps -2025 -2- Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, fairly concedes that pre-cognizance hearing is required petitioner under proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS been filed after 01.07.2024. In view thereof, the impugned order directing the PMLA Court to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in terms of the statutory requirement of receiving a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of May 21, 2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, fairly required by issuing notice to the petitioner under proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS, since the complaint has of, the impugned order, dated 09.12.2024, is set aside directing the PMLA Court to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of statutory requirement, within a period a certified copy of this order. disposed of. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, fairly notice to the ince the complaint has is set aside directing the PMLA Court to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of within a period TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) PUSHPINDER SAINI 2025.05.26 18:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document