CHANDIGARH: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has for the third time written to the Punjab Police, urging the state police to immediately register a First Information Report (FIR) on the basis of money laundering-related information it had shared with it.
This time, in a letter dated August 31 addressed to the AIG (Investigation), Punjab Bureau of Investigation, the ED's Jalandhar zonal office stated that it was replying to the state police's communication of August 28, in which it had sought deputation of an authorised ED officer along with the complete record, including original electronic data, chain-of-custody documentation and statements, before registering the case.
The central investigating agency had earlier written two letters to the Punjab DGP, on July 30 and August 7.
The letter, a copy of which is with this newspaper, states: "It is submitted that the information along with material was shared under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, vide this office's communications dated 30.07.2026, and 07.08.2026 and via email on 07.08.2026, only after due examination, investigation and assessment by this office and approval of the competent authority, and upon this office being satisfied that the material disclosed contravention of the provisions of law administered by your office."
It noted that section 66(2) casts an obligation on this office to share such information with the concerned agency for necessary action. It does not, in itself, contemplate or require the receiving agency to call for further authentication, chain of custody or original source data as a pre-condition to registration of FIR.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others, the ED contended that the jurisdictional police were duty-bound to register a case upon receiving information about a scheduled offence, irrespective of whether it was cognizable or non-cognizable, and maintained that Section 66(2) serves merely as a provision for sharing information and does not empower the police to delay or make registration contingent on receiving additional material from the ED.
The letter further stated the position confirms that Section 66(2) is a mechanism for onward intimation to enable your office to take necessary action, and cannot be treated as conferring a right on the receiving agency to withhold or condition registration of FIR upon further production of material by this office.
The letter also invoked the Constitution Bench ruling in Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), which held that registration of an FIR was mandatory once information disclosed a cognizable offence, and that a preliminary inquiry, permissible only in limited categories of cases such as corruption, had to be completed within seven to 15 days. The ED said that more than 30 days had already elapsed since it first shared the material, and that no further preliminary inquiry was warranted at this stage.
"It is also respectfully submitted that registration of FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C./Section 173 BNSS is mandatory once the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence," it reads.
The letter also noted that this office is also cognizant that the subject matter is presently under the consideration of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (in CWP-PIL-238- 2026 (Nikhil Saraf v. State of Punjab and Others), wherein, vide order dated August 27 learned counsel for this office has already stated that communications were sent to the office of the Director General of Police, Punjab, and the Court has called upon the State to state the stand and action proposed to be taken in the matter, the case being listed next on September 3.
"Without prejudice to the above legal position, and solely to facilitate expeditious action, the material forming the basis of the information already furnished vide communication dated July 30 is being supplemented herewith by legible copies of the chats, screenshots and other material, together with the certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in respect of the electronic records relied upon along with statement of Nitin Gohal dated May 5 and 8.recorded under section 17 of PMLA 2002," it added.
The letter also stated that in view of the above, it is requested that the FIR may kindly be registered forthwith on the basis of the information and material already provided, as now supplemented with legible copies and the requisite certificate, and a copy of the FIR so registered may be furnished to this office at the earliest, in any case before the next date of hearing.
The letter concluded, "Any delay in registration of FIR may lead to destruction or tampering of evidence and hence FIR is required to be registered urgently."