- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 366 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI R M MANJUNATH GOWDA, S/O LATE SHRI RAMAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT 153, VILLAGE KARAKUCHHI, POST SHRIGERE, TALUQ SHIMOGA, DIST. SHIMOGA, KARNATAKA - 583 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KIRAN S JAVALI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SHIVAJI H MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, ‘B’ BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, TTMC, KH ROAD, BENGALURU 560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY MS. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, CGC) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER SECTION 44 (1) (B) AND 45 (1) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-1) IN SPL.C.C.NO. 2319/2025 FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 OF PML ACT-2002 (ANNEXURE 'A' AND 'B'). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner – accused No.1 is before the Court seeking the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the complaint filed by the respondents under Section 44 (1) (b) & 45 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and consequently the entire proceedings pending as against the petitioner before The Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-1) in Spl.C.C.No.2319/2025 for offences under Sections 3 and punishable under section 4 of PML Act-2002 (Annexure 'A' and 'B') and Pass such other order or direction as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned senior counsel along with Sri Shivaji H. Mane, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Anuparna Bordoloi, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.325/2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420 and 34 of the IPC wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.15. The said crime is registered on 20.08.2015. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet, which is now pending as C.C.No.2776 of 2019. The petitioner is initially dropped from the charge sheet. Close to about six years later, on 15.01.2021, the Directorate of Enforcement register an ECIR. Subsequently, after conducting further investigation, police file an additional charge sheet in which the petitioner again comes to be arrayed as accused No.15. The issue in the lis is not with regard to those proceedings. The Directorate of Enforcement files a prosecution complaint against the petitioner before the concerned Court on 06.06.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('Act' for short). On 30.07.2025, the concerned Court passed an order directing the respondents to place the entire records of the case before the Court for compliance with the provisions of Section 223 of the BNSS and to afford an opportunity of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 hearing to the petitioner before taking cognizance. On 25.08.2025, the concerned Court rejects the memo dated 23.08.2025, filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction to the Directorate of Enforcement to furnish him with a copy of the complaint and other documents to enable him to make submissions with respect to taking of cognizance of the case. The said memo is rejected on the score that the registration and investigation of the case for the predicate offence was taken up prior to the commencement of the BNSS in view of Section 531(2) of the BNSS, further proceedings in the case is to be taken up in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C and the provisions of Section 223 are not applicable to the case at hand. After several hearings, the concerned Court, on 07.11.2025, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passes an order taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and directs the registration of the case as Spl.C.No.2319 of 2025. It is challenging these proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 4. Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned senior counsel submits that the filing of the prosecution complaint is akin to a proceeding under a private complaint under Section 223 of the BNSS and the procedures stipulated under Section 223 of the BNSS must be followed. Learned senior counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PARVINDER SINGH VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT1. 5. Since the entire issue is with respect to the order taking cognizance and the opportunity of hearing not being given to the petitioner as provided under Section 223 of the BNSS, certain orders passed by the concerned Court leading to the order taking cognizance are required to be noticed. 5.1. Upon filing of the prosecution complaint, the concerned Court on 30-07-2025, passes the following order: “In this case the Complainant has completed investigation in the case and filed a complaint before the Court on 6.6.2025 alleging that the R.M. Accused namely Manjunath Gowda has committed the offense of money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section of PML Act 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 903 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 In Kushal Kumar Agarwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Crl.A. No. 2749/2025, D.D. 9.5.2025), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the provisions of Chapter XVI containing Sections 223 to 226, will also apply to a complaint under Section 44 of PML Act and Section 223 of BNSS would apply to the complaint filed under PML Act, after 1" July, 2024. As per proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 223 of BNSS, there is an embargo on the power of the Court in taking cognizance without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused. Hence, the following: ORDER Place entire record before the Court on regular date of hearing i.e., 23.8.2025 for complying with Section 223 of BNSS and to give an opportunity of hearing to the accused regarding the question of taking cognizance in the case. Call on 23.08.2025 Sd/- (30/7) Prl. C.C & S.J. Bengaluru City” The concerned Court directs that prosecution to place on record the entire details pertaining to the complaint and to an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance as provided under Section 223 of the BNSS. 5.2. Later, on 23.08.2025 the petitioner files a memo seeking for a copy of the complaint and the documents annexed to it for making his submissions on the issue of cognizance. The concerned Court in terms of it's order dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 25.08.2025 rejects the memo filed by the petitioner. The order reads as follows: “ ORDER On completion of the investigation based on the Report registered in ECIR/BGZO/05/2021, the Complainant Authority filed a complaint before this Court on 6.6.2025 under Section 44 (1)(b) and Section 45(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act alleging that the accused herein namely Manjunath Gowda R.M. has committed the offense of money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of PML Act. 2. Pursuant to the same, this Court vide Order dated 13.7.2025 directed the Office to place entire record before the Court on regular date of hearing for complying with Section 223 of BNSS and to give an opportunity of hearing to the accused person regarding the question of taking cognizance based on the complaint filed in the case. 3. On such regular date of hearing i.e. 23.8.2025 the accused appeared before the Court and filed a memo praying for a direction to the Complainant - Authority to provide him CIVIL AND of the complaint and documents so as to enable him to make submission regarding taking cognizance in the case. 4. On 17.9.2025 the Complainant through learned Special Public Prosecutor filed objection to the above referred memo of the accused stating that the provisions of BNSS are not applicable to the case on hand as this case came to be initiated much prior to the commencement of BNSS and as such hearing of the accused before taking cognizance etc. are not applicable. In view of the same, they have prayed to reject the memo filed on behalf of the accused. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor on the memo dated 23.8.2025. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 6. The following points would arise for the consideration of this Court: 1. Whether the compliance of Section 223 of BNSS is required in the case? 2. What Order? 7. The findings of this Court on the above points are under: Point No.1:-In the Negative; Point No.2:- As per final order; For the following: REASONS 8. Point No.1: Section 223 of BNSS contemplates the procedure to be followed while taking cognizance of an offense on complaint. The first proviso to the said Section mandates that no cognizance of an offense shall be taken by the Magistrate on complaint without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. Thereby it becomes clear that it is mandatory to give the accused an opportunity of being heard while taking cognizance of an offense on complaint. 9. Undisputedly BNSS has come into force with effect from 1.7.2024 by replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Earlier the procedure for taking cognizance of an offense on complaint was governed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Admittedly under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. there was no requirement of giving the accused an opportunity of hearing le taking cognizance of an offense on complaint. 10. At this stage it would be useful to refer to Section BNSS, which would help the Court in appreciating the contentions raised by the parties in the case. It is a repeal and savings provision. Section 531(2) of BNSS stipulates that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 notwithstanding repeal of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 531(1) of BNSS, if immediately before the date on which BNSS comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure as in force immediately before such commencement, as if BNSS had not come into force. Thereby Section 531(2) of BNSS makes it clear the provisions of BNSS are not applicable to any proceedings initiated or pending before its commencement. 11. Coming to the case on hand, the complaint in question came to be filed on 6.6.2025 based on investigation taken up in Report No. ECIR/BGZO/05/2021. The Complainant Authority had registered the said report on 15.1.2021 in pursuance of FIR bearing No. 325/2014 dated 7.7.2014. Thereafter, addendum to the said report was issued on 4.10.2023 based on FIR No. 4/2014 dated 29.5.2014 in which charge sheet bearing No. 2/2018 came to be filed on 20.3.2018. Thus, the contents of the complaint make it clear that in this case the investigation for the alleged offense of money laundering was taken up much prior to commencement of BNSS and in view of Section 531(2) of BNSS, further proceeding in the case is to be taken up in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. As already pointed out, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offense on complaint by examining the Complainant and the witnesses present if any subject to exception carved out in the proviso to the said Section. The provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure do not stipulate need of giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused while taking cognizance of an offense based on a complaint. In view of the same, this Court holds - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 that the Complainant Authority is justified in objecting the memo filed by the accused person and in contending that the proceeding of this case has to be conducted in accordance the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, Port No.1 is answered in the negative. 13. Point No.2: In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The memo filed by the accused in the case on 23.8.2025 is rejected. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-Il directly on the computer. typed by her, then corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25th day of September, 2025) Sd/- (25/9/2025) (Muralidhara Par B.) Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.” (Emphasis added) The concerned Court rejects the memo filed by the petitioner on the score that the investigation for the offences under the Act was taken up prior to the commencement of the BNSS and in view of Section 531(2) of the BNSS, further proceedings are to be taken up in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C and the provisions of Section 223 of the BNSS were not applicable to the case at hand. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 5.3. Subsequently, on 07.11.2025, the concerned Court without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passes the following order taking cognizance of offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Act. The order taking cognizance reads as follows: “ORDER The Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India represented by the Assistant Director, Bengaluru Zonal Office has maintained this complaint under Sections 44(1)(B) and 45(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (in short 'PML Act') alleging that the accused has committed offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act, 2002. 2. This complaint has been filed along with documents in 60 Volumes and list of Notifications. 3. The complaint is filed by the public servant i.e. Assistant Director of Directorate Enforcement. Government of India and he is authorized by the government to file the complaint by virtue of the Notification. The complainant being public servant and by acting in discharging of his official duty has filed the complaint. Hence, in terms of Section 200(a) of Cr.P.C. the recording of sworn statement is dispensed with. 4. Originally on 17.7.2014 Doddapete Police of Shivmogga registered a case in FIR No.325/2014 against B. Shobha, SDCC, Bank Manager, and others for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420 and 34 of IPC. Later, the said case came to be transferred to CID for further investigation. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 5. On 18.10.2014 CID Police filed the charge sheet in FIR No.325/2014 against Smt. B. Shobha and others in connection with misappropriation of funds of SDCC Bank from August 2005, to a tune of Rs.62,77,73,560/-, on the allegation that Smt. B. Shobha has misused her power as the Bank Manager and the other accused persons facilitated her in misappropriating the funds of SDCC Bank, by fraudulently sanctioning gold loans etc. 6. Initially, the accused herein. namely R.M. Manjunath Gowda, had been shown as Accused No.15 in FIR No.325/2014. At the time of submitting the charge sheet, he was dropped from the case due to lack of evidence at that stage. 7. In FIR No.325/2014 CID Police submitted an additional charge sheet on 30.7.2021 under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and arraigned the accused herein as Accused No.15, for the offenses under Sections 409, 202 read with Section 36 of IPC. 8. Meanwhile, i.e. on 29.5.2014 Lokayukta Police registered a case against the accused herein in Crime No.4/2014 for the offenses punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 20.3.2018 a charge sheet came to be filed in the said case against the accused herein before learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, wherein the concerned court took cognizance of alleged offense vide Order dated 7.4.2018. 9. The accused herein has filed W.P. No. 10108/2024 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka questioning correctness of the sanction order given to prosecute him in the said case and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has stayed the proceeding vide Order dated 4.4.2024. 10. Complainant - Authority recorded a report in ECIR/BGZO /5/2021 dated 15.1.2021 based on case in FIR No.325/2014. addendum to the said ECIR was issued on 4.10.2023 incorporating - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 another FIR No.4/2014 dated 29.5.2014 registered by Lokayuktha Police. 10. The accused herein filed W.P. No. 22780/2023 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka praying to quash all proceeding initiated in ECIR/BGZO/05/2021. The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 20.2.2024. The said order was challenged by the accused by preferring W.A. No.497/2024 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Even the said appeal came to be dismissed on 22.3.2025. 11. The complaint contains details of provisional attachment order, summary of evidence to prove the accusation made against the accused persons and properties involved in money laundering, specific role of each of the accused persons in the commission of alleged offense and the basis on which the Complainant Authority has found the materials to make these accusations against the accused persons. In the considered view of this Court, the Complainant Authority has placed sufficient materials on record such as documents, statements of the witnesses and the accused persons recorded under Section 50 of PML Act to proceed against the accused by taking cognizance for the alleged offenses. 12. In the complaint Complainant Authority has also sought permission to file additional /supplementary complaint if any on the ground that the further investigation is still going on. Hence, the following: ORDER Cognizance is taken for the offence defined under Section 3 of PML Act and punishable under Section 4 of PML Act. Office is directed to register a Special case against the accused. Call on 15.12.2025. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 Sd/- (7/11) Prl. C.C. & S. J., Bengaluru” 6. In light of the aforesaid orders, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of PARVIDNER SINGH supra is required to be noticed. The Apex Court observes as follows: “Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023 “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 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. (2) A Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint against a public servant for any offence alleged to have been committed in course of the discharge of his official functions or duties unless— (a) such public servant is given an opportunity to make assertions as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged; and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 (b) a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to such public servant is received.” (emphasis supplied) 26. Section 223 of the BNSS deals with the examination of a complainant. The first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS prohibits the Magistrate from taking cognizance of an offence, unless the accused is given an opportunity of being heard. 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. We further hold that the word “shall” occurring in the said proviso has to be construed to be mandatory in nature, which enures 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. Section 531 of the BNSS, 2023 “531. Repeal and savings.— (1) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal— (a) if, immediately before the date on which this Sanhita comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the said Code), as if this Sanhita had not come into force;” *** - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 (emphasis supplied) 28. Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS has a laudable objective behind it which saves the proceedings initiated under the CrPC, prior to the commencement of the BNSS. It is meant to give a prospective application to the provisions of the BNSS. In other words, once a proceeding such as an appeal, application, investigation, inquiry or trial is initiated under the CrPC, then the same must meet its logical conclusion under the CrPC itself. Thus, we hold that the object of the said provision is to avoid piecemeal application of the CrPC vis-à-vis the BNSS. 29. A substantive right conferred under the BNSS would definitely enure to the benefit of an accused against whom none of the proceedings envisaged under Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS has been initiated. One has to see the nature of right. It is not a case of either a retrospective or retroactive application, rather it is a prospective one when a better right has been conferred under the BNSS. LEGAL & FACTUAL ANALYSIS 30. The issue of application of the procedure pertaining to a complaint under the CrPC (now BNSS) to proceedings under the PMLA is no longer res integra, as has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in the decisions of Tarsem Lal (supra), Yash Tuteja (supra) and Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra). Though we find that in the instant case the said issue has not been specifically raised either before the Trial Court or the High Court, we are willing to consider the same, being a pure question of law. 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. If the argument so made by the learned ASG is accepted, then the Special Court under - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 the PMLA would have no jurisdiction to: dismiss a complaint despite an absolute lack of evidence, postpone the issuance of process, issue process or dispense with the appearance of an accused as provided under Sections 225 to 228 of the BNSS, respectively. 32. In such view of the matter, we are in absolute agreement with the decisions rendered by this Court in Tarsem Lal (supra), Yash Tuteja (supra) and Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra), which we quote profitably. Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 7 SCC 61 “17. After carefully perusing the provisions of PMLA, we find that there is no provision therein which is in any manner inconsistent with Section 205 CrPC. Hence, it will apply to a complaint under PMLA. A summons is issued on a complaint to ensure attendance of the accused before the criminal court. If an accused is in custody, no occasion arises for a court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused. We may note here that Section 205 empowers the court to grant exemption only when a summons is issued. Sub-section (2) of Section 205 provides for enforcing the attendance of the accused before the court at the time of the trial. If the accused who appears pursuant to the summons issued on a complaint were deemed to be in custody, the lawmakers would not have provided for Section …… *** 33. Now, we summarise our conclusions as under: 33.1. Once a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA is filed, it will be governed by Sections 200 to 205 CrPC as none of the said provisions are inconsistent with any of the provisions of PMLA; 33.2. If the accused was not arrested by ED till filing of the complaint, while taking cognizance on a complaint under Section 44(1)(b), as a normal rule, the court should issue a summons to the accused and not a warrant. Even in a case where the accused is on bail, a summons must be issued; 33.3. After a summons is issued under Section 204 CrPC on taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 4 PMLA on a complaint, if the accused appears before the Special - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 Court pursuant to the summons, he shall not be treated as if he is in custody. Therefore, it is not necessary for him to apply for bail. However, the Special Court can direct the accused to furnish bond in terms of Section 88 CrPC; 33.4. In a case where the accused appears pursuant to a summons before the Special Court, on a sufficient cause being shown, the Special Court can grant exemption from personal appearance to the accused by exercising power under Section 205 CrPC;” *** (emphasis supplied) Yash Tuteja v. Union of India, (2024) 8 SCC 465 “6. The only mode by which the cognizance of the offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 PMLA, can be taken by the Special Court is upon a complaint filed by the Authority authorised on this behalf. Section 46 PMLA provides that the provisions of CrPC (including the provisions as to bails or bonds) shall apply to proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of CrPC provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions. However, sub- section (1) of Section 46 starts with the words “save as otherwise provided in this Act”. Considering the provisions of Section 46(1) PMLA, save as otherwise provided in PMLA, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court. Therefore, once a complaint is filed before the Special Court, the provisions of Sections 200 to 204 CrPC will apply to the complaint. There is no provision in PMLA which overrides the provisions of Sections 200 to Sections 204 CrPC. Hence, the Special Court will have to apply its mind to the question of whether a prima facie case of a commission of an offence under Section 3 PMLA is made out in a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA. If the Special Court is of the view that no prima facie case of an offence under Section 3 PMLA is made out, it must exercise the power under Section 203 CrPC to dismiss the complaint. If a prima facie case is made out, the Special Court can take recourse to Section 204 CrPC.” (emphasis supplied) - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 Kaushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221. “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) 8 SCC 465, and Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate, (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 has been filed after 1st 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. 7. In this case, admittedly, an opportunity of being heard was not given by the learned Special Judge to the appellant before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Only on that ground, the impugned order dated 20th April, 2024, will have to be set aside.” (emphasis supplied) 33. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that Sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC (now Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS) would be applicable to proceedings under the PMLA. 34. A mere ministerial act cannot be termed as an “inquiry” under Section 2(1)(k) of the BNSS. Taking cognizance is nothing but an application of judicial mind. So long as the application of the judicial mind is not exercised, an inquiry cannot commence. It is the judicial notice of an offence by the Court which is relevant. While doing so, it is presumed that the Court would take note of the complaint along with the materials placed before it. 35. The learned ASG placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) to contend that in the facts of the instant case, the inquiry had been initiated upon filing of the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 prosecution complaint on 24.06.2024 which is, admittedly, prior to the commencement of the BNSS on 01.07.2024. We find that the said decision actually militates against the submission made by him, and would only quote the following paragraphs in the aforesaid decision: “26. In Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 1167, this Court held: (AIR p. 1169, para 9) “9. … once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he takes cognizance of an offence and not the offenders; once he takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence.” 27. The stage of inquiry commences, insofar as the court is concerned, with the filing of the charge- sheet and the consideration of the material collected by the prosecution, that is mentioned in the charge- sheet for the purpose of trying the accused. This has to be understood in terms of Section 2(g) CrPC, which defines an inquiry as follows: “2. (g) ‘inquiry’ means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or court.” 28. In State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman, (1983) 2 SCC 372, this Court held that from the stage of filing of charge-sheet to ensuring the compliance with the provision of Section 207 CrPC, the court is only at the stage of inquiry and no trial can be said to have commenced. The above view has been held to be per incuriam in Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 4 SCC 495, wherein this Court while observing that Section 319(1) CrPC operates in an ongoing inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, held that at the stage of Section 209 CrPC, the court is neither at the stage of inquiry nor at the stage of trial. Even at the stage of ensuring compliance with Sections 207 and 208 CrPC, it cannot be said that the court is at the stage of inquiry because there is no judicial application of mind and all that the Magistrate is required to do is to make the case ready to be heard by the Court of Session.” - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 (emphasis supplied) 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. In such view of the matter, the aforestated contention raised by the learned ASG falls to the ground. 37. As already discussed, though the complaint under the PMLA was filed earlier, the cognizance was only taken subsequently, on 02.07.2024, by which time the BNSS had come into force. Admittedly, the appellant has not been heard at the time of taking cognizance. The mandate of a legislation which ensures the right of an accused to a fair trial, whose liberty is at stake, cannot be dispensed with. Thus, 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. 38. Based on the above discussion, the views expressed by the High Court are, therefore, liable to be set aside. We do find that the allegations against the appellant are quite serious. However, non-compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS vitiates the very order taking cognizance, and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. In fact, the appellant has, at the earliest point in time, filed the application for recall of the order taking cognizance by placing reliance upon the said proviso. Had the Special Court allowed it, the trial would have proceeded further. Suffice it to state that the appellant cannot be faulted for any delay that has occasioned. 39. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 19.05.2025 and the order - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 taking cognizance by the Special Court dated 02.07.2024 stand set aside.” 7. Prior to the judgment of the Apex Court in PARVINDER SINGH supra, the High Court of Delhi in the case of LAKSHAY VIJ v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE2 observes that, Section 223 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 200 Cr.PC, will also apply to a complaint under Section 44 of the Act, filed after 01.07.2024. The High Court observes as follows: "6. In the present case, the prosecution complaint was filed on 19.09.2024. The BNSS, 2023 came into force on 01.07.2024. The Supreme Court in the case of Yash Tuteja v. Union of India, (2024) 8 SCC 465 and Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 7 SCC 61 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 39, has taken the view that a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA will be governed by Section 200 to 204 of the Cr.PC. Thus, Section 223 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 200 Cr.PC, will also apply to a complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA, filed after 01.07.2024. Section 223, BNSS reads as under:— “Section 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 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 2 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8285 - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 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. (2) A Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint against a public servant for any offence alleged to have been committed in course of the discharge of his official functions or duties unless— (a) such public servant is given an opportunity to make assertions as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged; and (b) a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to such public servant is received.” 7. Section 223 provides an added safeguard that no cognizance shall be taken without affording the accused an opportunity of being heard. In Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra), the Supreme Court held that since the PMLA complaint was filed after 1 July 2024, Section 223 BNSS shall apply, mandating an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance. As the Special Judge failed to provide such hearing, the impugned order was set aside solely on this ground, without touching the merits of the case. The relevant paras are extracted herein; “6. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 puts an embargo on the power of - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 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. 7. In this case, admittedly, an opportunity of being heard was not given by the learned Special Judge to the appellant before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Only on that ground, the impugned order dated 20th April, 2024, will have to be set aside. …… 10. The impugned order dated 20th November, 2024, is set aside only on the ground of non-compliance with the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.” 8. Thus, the Supreme Court has already settled the law in the case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra), covering the identical issue, which is subject matter of the present petition, the ratio laid therein shall apply in the present case as well. Since the complaint bearing CC No. 25/2024 titled “Directorate of Enforcement v. Lakshay Vij” has been filed after 01.07.2024, cognizance cannot be taken without conferring an opportunity of hearing to the accused. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 04.01.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 223 of BNSS, 2023, seeking hearing at the time of taking cognizance of the complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate, cannot be sustained, as it failed to appreciate the applicability of Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023 to a prosecution complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.” - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 8. Later, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of G. GANESAN v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE3, observes as follows: “ ….. ….. ….. 26. On an appeal by a special leave to the Supreme Court, leave was granted and heard by a Constitution Bench. Of the several issues that were presented, one of the issues was the interpretation of the word ‘pending’ before any Magistrate. The Supreme Court referred to the definition of the word ‘pending’ as laid down by Jessel, M.R. in. In re, Clagett's Estate, Fordham v. Clagett, [L.R.] 20 Ch. 637 at p. 653) which we extract hereunder:— “What is the meaning of the word “pending”? In my opinion, it includes every insolvency in which any proceeding can by any possibility be taken. That I think is the meaning of the word “pending” … A cause is said to be pending in a Court of justice when any proceeding can be taken in it. That is the test.” 27. The Bench also referred to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 3rd Edition, Volume III, p.2141, which defined the word ‘pending’ as follows:— “(1) A legal proceeding is “pending” as soon as commenced and until it is concluded i.e., so long as the court having original cognizance of it can make an order on the matter in issue, or to be dealt with, therein.” 28. Approving the principles set forth above, the court came to a conclusion, that the order of the Bombay High Court holding that any proceeding ‘pending’ before the Presidency Magistrate, ought to have been transferred to the Special Court is correct and consequently, dismissed the appeal. 3 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 11885 - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 29. Yet again, the word ‘pending’ came up for consideration in the case of Lt. Col. S.K. Kashyap v. State of Rajasthan, (1971) 2 SCC 126 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 452. After referring to the judgment in Singaporawalla's case, Chief Justice, A.N. Ray defined the word in the following terms:— “the word ‘pending’ will ordinarily mean that the matter is not concluded and the court which has cognizance of it can make an order on the matter in issue. The test is whether any proceedings can be taken in the cause before the court or Tribunal where it is said to be pending. The answer is that until the case is concluded it is pending.” 30. In this case, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Principal Sessions Judge on 14.08.2023. Hence, the proceedings have to be treated ‘pending’ at least from that date. If the proceedings are pending, then it is the erstwhile Code of 1973 would be applicable and not the BNSS of 2023. Consequently, the question of applying Section 223 of BNSS of 2023 does not arise at all to the facts of this case.” The Division Bench observes that the expression "pending" in Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS cannot be assigned a narrow construction and must, at the very least, be understood as referring to proceedings from the date on which cognizance of the offence is taken. Proceedings pending under the Act from the stage of cognizance would remain governed by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and not by the BNSS, 2023. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 9. Subsequently, another Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, in the case of R. SAMPATH V. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE4, observes as follows: “ ….. ….. ….. 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 Supreme 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 CrPC, relying upon the earlier decisions in the cases of Yash Tuteja v. Union of India4 and Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate5. 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 where a complaint has been filed after 1-7-2024, Section 223 of BNSS will become applicable. 7. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent dealt with different factual premise. One of the judgments in the case of G. Ganesan (supra) has been assailed by filing SLP in the Supreme Court and an interim order has been passed on 5-1-2026. 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 petitioners is per se illegal and impermissible in law. 4 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 6624 - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 9. Accordingly, the order dated 7-10-2025 taking cognizance in Spl. C.C. No. 8 of 2025 pending on the file of XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, is set aside. The complaint is restored to its original file number and the Court concerned shall proceed in accordance with law. The Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed in terms aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” The Division Bench observes that, in a case where a complaint under Section 44 of the Act has been filed after 01.07.2024, Section 223 of BNSS will become applicable. 10. Later, the High Court of Bombay in the case of NEERAJ SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA5, reiterates that a complaint filed under Section 44 of the Act filed after the 1st of July, 2024 must adhere to Section 223 of the BNSS. The High Court observes as follows: “ ….. ….. ….. 7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity of being heard before cognizance was taken of the offences in the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 44(1)(b) of PMLA, 2002. This issue is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kushal Kumar Agarwal 5 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 642 - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:— “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 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 - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 latter Magistrate need not re- examine them.” 4. Section 223 of the BNSS corresponds to Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 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 and Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate. 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 has been filed after 1st 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. 7. In this case, admittedly, an opportunity of being heard was not given by the learned Special Judge to the appellant before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Only on that ground, the impugned order dated 20th April, 2024, will have to be set aside.” 8. Applying the principle of law set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the Trial Court has not given an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Hence, the impugned order of taking cognizance dated 04.12.2025 will have to be set aside. 9. Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 is set aside only on the ground of non- - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 compliance with the Proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023. 10. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Special Court on 04.02.2026 at 2.30 p.m. so that he can be given an opportunity of being heard in terms of the Proviso to Sub- Section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023. It is made clear that no further notice shall be issued by the Trial Court to the Petitioner.” 11. In LAKSHAY VIJ v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE6, the High Court of Delhi observes that Section 223 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 200 Cr.PC, will also apply to a complaint under Section 44 of the Act, filed after 01.07.2024. The High Court observes as follows: "6. In the present case, the prosecution complaint was filed on 19.09.2024. The BNSS, 2023 came into force on 01.07.2024. The Supreme Court in the case of Yash Tuteja v. Union of India, (2024) 8 SCC 465 and Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 7 SCC 61 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 39, has taken the view that a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA will be governed by Section 200 to 204 of the Cr.PC. Thus, Section 223 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 200 Cr.PC, will also apply to a complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA, filed after 01.07.2024. Section 223, BNSS reads as under:— “Section 223. Examination of complainant. (1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on 6 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8285 - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of 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. (2) A Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint against a public servant for any offence alleged to have been committed in course of the discharge of his official functions or duties unless— (a) such public servant is given an opportunity to make assertions as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged; and (b) a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to such public servant is received.” 7. Section 223 provides an added safeguard that no cognizance shall be taken without affording the accused an opportunity of being heard. In Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra), the Supreme Court held that since the PMLA complaint was filed after 1 July 2024, - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 Section 223 BNSS shall apply, mandating an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance. As the Special Judge failed to provide such hearing, the impugned order was set aside solely on this ground, without touching the merits of the case. The relevant paras are extracted herein; “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. 7. In this case, admittedly, an opportunity of being heard was not given by the learned Special Judge to the appellant before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Only on that ground, the impugned order dated 20th April, 2024, will have to be set aside. …… 10. The impugned order dated 20th November, 2024, is set aside only on the ground of non-compliance with the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.” 8. Thus, the Supreme Court has already settled the law in the case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra), covering the identical issue, which is subject matter of the present petition, the ratio laid therein shall apply in the present case as well. Since the complaint bearing CC No. 25/2024 titled “Directorate of Enforcement v. Lakshay Vij” has been filed after 01.07.2024, cognizance cannot be taken without conferring an opportunity of hearing to the accused. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 04.01.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 223 of BNSS, 2023, seeking hearing at the time of taking cognizance of the complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate, cannot be sustained, as it failed to appreciate the applicability of Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023 to a prosecution complaint filed - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.” (Emphasis supplied at each instance) 12. In the light of the issue insofar as the procedure to be followed under Section 223 of the BNSS in a prosecution complaint to be filed under the Act, before the concerned Court, after the commencement of the BNSS, standing answered by the law laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts, the petition deserves to succeed only to the limited extent, for the concerned Court to take fresh cognizance of the complaint after following the procedure contained under Section 223 of the BNSS. Therefore, the order taking cognizance dated 07.11.2025 and the order dated 25.08.2025 deserve to be quashed. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order of taking of cognizance dated 07-11-2025, on the prosecution complaint, qua the petitioner, stands quashed. - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31246 WP No. 366 of 2026 (iii) Consequently, the order dated 25-08-2025 rejecting the memo filed by the petitioner, passed by the concerned Court also, stands quashed. (iv) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to consider afresh and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. (v) All other contentions urged in the present petition shall remain open to be urged at a later point in time. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18