(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings in O.A.No.364 of 2025 against the petitioner conducted by 1st respondent herein and quash the same as illegal against the petitioner/4th defendant in O.A.No.364 of 2025.)

G. Arul Murugan, J.

1. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in O.A.No.364 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent/Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

2. Mr.M.G.Pranava Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s company is only offering a platform for merchants, which is strictly a payment intermediary, having no control over the commercial transactions between the merchants and customers and therefore, the proceedings undertaken by the 1st respondent are not maintainable. He further submitted that since the petitioner’s company is no way involved with any unlawful transactions or illegalities, the retention of properties in the form of gold bullions, digital devices, etc., particularly when the petitioner is only a payment intermediary, cannot be sustained. Further, he contended that since the reasons recorded under Section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], do not in any way implicate the petitioner’s company, the show cause notice issued on 11.12.2025 to the petitioner is erroneous and as the 1st respondent does not have jurisdiction to proceed further, the present writ petition filed is maintainable.

3. Per contra, Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Special Public Prosecutor (ED) for the 2nd respondent submitted that pursuant to the seizure made, Original Application has been filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 17(4) of the Act for retention of the seized movable properties under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority, by recording the reasons under Section 8(1) of the Act, had issued show cause notice to the petitioner. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner had filed a counter statement and had also participated in the enquiry and further enquiry is posted on 16.04.2026. He further submitted that it is for the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and the present writ petition filed is not maintainable.

4. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

5. Based on a complaint, that the victims were lured through Facebook advertisements and WhatsApp groups in the name of ‘Billion Club 16’, ‘Labha069’ and ‘Light of Wisdom 43’, projecting as stock market trading academies and huge amounts of money running to several crores were misappropriated, a case in Crime No.277 of 2024 came to be registered on 17.08.2024 against one Raghav Ruia and others for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Based on the predicate offence, which are all scheduled offences under the Act, the 2nd respondent registered a case in ECIR/HIU-II/18/2025 dated 28.07.2025.

6. A search was conducted under Section 17 of the Act on 07.11.2025 and 08.11.2025. During the search, several incriminating materials were found in the form of gold bullions, digital devices and documents, which were believed to be the proceeds of crime.

7. On seizure of the materials, the 2nd respondent had filed an application before the 1st respondent/Adjudicating Authority as mandated under Section 17(4) of the Act for retention of the properties seized. On receipt of the application under Section 17(4) of the Act, the Adjudicating Authority, by proceedings dated 11.12.2025, has recorded that there are prima facie materials indicating the proceeds of crime, attracting provisions of the Act and thereby had issued show cause notices to the respondents in the application, including the petitioner herein, as contemplated under Section 8(1) of the Act.

8. As per the scheme of the Act, on issuance of notice under Section 8(1) of the Act, the respondents in the application will be entitled to file their objections/reply to the retention of properties. On filing of the objections, the Adjudicating Authority, as per Section 8(2) of the Act, shall consider the reply and after hearing the aggrieved person, by taking into account all relevant materials placed on record, shall pass an order by recording a finding as to whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued under sub-section (1) of the Act are involved in money laundering.

9. As per the proviso, even a person who claims to be the owner of the property other than to whom notice has been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity to prove that the property is not involved in the alleged violation. In case, the Adjudicating Authority passes an order confirming retention of properties under Section 8(3) of the Act, then, the same is subject to further proceedings as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.

10. Admittedly, in the instant case, based on the predicate offence, the ECIR under the Act came to be registered by the 2nd respondent. Further, on the reasons to believe recorded, the search and seizure were carried out, which has not been disputed. The 2nd respondent had filed application as contemplated under Section 17(4) of the Act for retention of the property along with the reasons to believe that have been recorded, under Section 17(1) of the Act to the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority, prima facie having been satisfied with the materials available on record that crores of rupees have been siphoned off and the proceeds of crime are involved, has recorded the reasons under Section 8(1) of the Act.

11. By proceedings dated 11.12.2025, the 1st respondent herein has issued the show cause notice to the petitioner. When none of the above proceedings are under dispute or challenge, admittedly, the petitioner had filed reply/objections to the show cause notice and it is not in dispute that the enquiry is posted for hearing on 16.04.2026. When the petitioner has participated in the proceedings and filed a reply putting forth their contentions, it is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider the materials and pass orders as contemplated under Section 8(2) of the Act, by recording a finding as to whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice is involved in money laundering.

12. While so, the present writ petition filed challenging the entire proceedings in Original Application before the Adjudicating Authority is completely misplaced. When the enquiry is posted on 16.04.2026, where the petitioner had already participated, it is for the petitioner to wait for the outcome of the orders to be passed by the Adjudicating Authority and take further proceedings in accordance with the provisions contemplated under the Act.

13. In such circumstances, we find no merit and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications stand closed.