Can ED Seek Direction To State Police To Register FIR For Alleged Predicate Offence? Madras High Court Asks

The Madras High Court on Friday questioned if the Enforcement Directorate, being an investigation agency, could file a plea seeking directions to another investigation agency (State) to register cases.

The bench of Chief Justice Maniindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate seeking directions to the State of Tamil Nadu to cooperate with the investigation in connection with the sand mining case and further directions to the Director General of Police to register FIRs based on ED's communication.  

"Our only question is whether you can yourself come here and ask this relief to another agency. We're not saying that the materials are not there. But the challenge is only that unless case is registered, can you investigate?", the court asked.

ED had registered ECIR based on four FIRs in connection with sand mining across Tamil Nadu. Based on the ECIR, provisional attachment order were issued. These orders were quashed by the Madras High Court in July last year, stating that there was no scheduled offence in the present case and hence the PMLA investigation was not sustainable. The High Court had held that till the scheduled offence is registered and there was detection of the proceeds of crime, the ED cannot carry out its investigation. Though the ED had filed a Special Leave Petition against this order, it was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 

ED's Special Public Prosecutor N Ramesh informed the court that the agency had collected materials relating to large-scale illegal mining in the State and though this information was shared with the Government, it had not registered any FIRs till date, prompting the agency to approach the court. 

The counsel also argued that the Supreme Court, in the Vijay Madanlal case, had observed that when an authorised officer sends information to the jurisdictional police under Section 66(2) of the Act for registration of a scheduled offence, the jurisdictional police would be obliged to register the case by way of an FIR. 

Advocate General PS Raman opposed the plea and submitted that registering an FIR was not the prerogative of the ED. He argued that merely because ED had shared information, the State could not act like a post office and register FIRs. The AG also submitted that the decision of the High Court was challenged by the ED in the Supreme Court, and it was dismissed only last month. It was submitted that the state had not taken any action due to the pendency of the case before the SC. 

At this point, the bench questioned how the ED could ask for directions to the State to register FIRs. At the same time, the court also told the State that it could not sit over the materials shared by the ED.

Though Ramesh argued that it was a matter of public interest since a large-scale scam was happening in the State, causing loss to the State exchequer, the AG intervened and argued that bogger scams were happening in states like UP, Bihar, and Gujarat, but the ED had eyes only on Tamil Nadu.

"Four times more scams are happening in UP, Gujarat, and Bihar. Have they taken any case against them? There are scams happening all over India. But they (ED) have eyes only on Tamil Nadu," the AG said. 

The AG also accused the ED of having a pick-and-choose attitude with filing cases only with respect to some states. He argued that if the ED's arguments were to be accepted, could the State of Tamil Nadu file cases in other states seeking directions to the ED to register ECIR based on the scheduled offences happening in those states. 

"Another aspect is whether the ED can have a pick and choose attitude and say that I have information, therefore you should register FIR. If we're allowing this, can my State go and file cases in Gujarat, UP and Bihar saying that these are the scheduled offences happening here and therefore you (ED) should register ECIR?" the AG asked. 

The court remarked that the State and the ED, being two investigation agencies, should not have any doubt or quarrel with each other. The court highlighted that the schedule of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was absent on what steps could be taken if an FIR is not registered based on the materials provided by the ED. The court remarked that it had to consider who would have to oversee the enforcement of the issue. 

The court directed the State to file its counter and adjourned the case by 3 weeks. 

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case NO: WP Crl 1227 of 2025