The Kerala High Court on Wednesday set aside a Ranni Magistrate Court order that had refused to give the Enforcement Directorate (ED) access to key case documents in a sensitive Crime Branch investigation. A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar heard the matter and delivered the order the same day at the Ernakulam High Court premises.
The courtroom saw sharp exchanges as the ED insisted they needed a copy of the FIR to move ahead under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The State pushed back, saying the case required discretion.
Background
The Directorate of Enforcement had approached the Magistrate in Ranni earlier, asking for a certified copy of the FIR registered by the Crime Branch as Crime No. 3700/2025, which includes offences under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act - predicate offences needed for PMLA action.
But the Magistrate rejected the ED’s request on 17 October 2025, stating that the investigation was “sensitive” and being monitored by the High Court. The agency then escalated the matter under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
ED counsel Jaishankar V. Nair argued that an FIR is a public document prepared by a public servant, and the Magistrate acted on wrong assumptions.
“There is no embargo from this Court preventing FIR access,” he said, urging intervention.
Court’s Observations
The Bench examined the Magistrate’s reasoning and made an important point - the ED’s own application lacked details about the existence of “proceeds of crime,” which is a necessary condition to trigger PMLA jurisdiction.
The judges pointed out gently but firmly:
“Jurisdiction under the PMLA commences only when the predicate offence has resulted in proceeds of crime.”
They explained that without such foundational facts in the request, the Magistrate would have difficulty approving it - even though the outright dismissal was incorrect.
The State’s top prosecutor told the court that if a fresh request comes, they should also be allowed to be heard before orders are passed. The Bench agreed to that procedural safeguard.
The court clarified another misconception too:
“We have not, at any point, imposed any embargo on the Magistrate considering an application… in accordance with the provisions of the PMLA…”
So while the lower court tried to exercise caution, it misunderstood the High Court’s previous directions.
Decision
Setting aside the Magistrate’s order, the High Court allowed the ED to approach the Ranni court again but with a proper, detailed application making clear why the documents are needed for a money-laundering probe.
The Bench directed that if such a petition is filed, the Magistrate must decide it on its merits “after hearing the State as well,” and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with the law.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was disposed of with those directions.
And with that, the brief but sharp hearing concluded leaving the ED to try again, this time with stronger paperwork.
Case Title:- Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Kerala