The Delhi High Court has held that a civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be entertained to challenge an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), as well as consequential proceedings including search and seizure under the Section 17(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Justice Anish Dayal held that an ECIR, being an internal administrative document of the ED, is amenable to judicial review by the High Court.

“This Court has jurisdiction in a Civil Writ Petition to consider a challenge to an ECIR instituted by the Enforcement Directorate and to the proceedings emanating therefrom, including steps taken under Section 17(1) of the PMLA,” the Court held.

It reasoned that since ECIR is an administrative exercise dependent upon the existence of a predicate offence, once the predicate offence ceases to exist, the aggrieved party would be entitled to challenge the executive action of continuing the ECIR.

The Court noted that many High Courts have entertained writ petitions and quashed proceedings under ECIRs or other actions taken under the PMLA by applying principles which constitute the bulwark of judicial review.

The Court was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the ECIR and subsequent action taken by the ED under the PMLA.

The ECIR had originally been registered in December 2021 on the basis of FIR No. 27/2021 (second FIR), registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) concerning allegations of forged signatures, share transfers and bank transactions.

The EOW subsequently filed a Cancellation Report in December 2022, concluding that no offence was made out, after forensic examination found the disputed signatures to be genuine. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the Cancellation Report on June 12, 2025.

However, on August 20, 2025, the ED issued an addendum incorporating an earlier FIR, FIR No. 279/2019, into the existing ECIR. Following the addendum, the ED conducted searches and issued summons to the petitioners.

Allowing the plea, the Court quashed the proceedings arising out of ECIR, noting that the predicate offence forming its original basis was closed. It held that ED could not subsequently revive the ECIR by adding an earlier and unrelated FIR through an addendum.

The Court held that the ED could not continue proceedings under the ECIR, including investigation concerning the second FIR, unless the predicate offence was subsequently revived by a judicial order.

The Court also quashed the consequential coercive actions and directed restoration of status quo ante.

Further, it held that the challenge raised by the petitioners was entertainable in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, and that the petitioners need not be relegated to the alternative remedy before the Adjudicating Authority, as contended by the ED.

“The ED cannot initiate or continue any proceedings under the said ECIR/DLZO/II/72/2021, including investigation in connection with FIR No. 27/2021 (second FIR), unless and until any further orders are passed by this Court or by a superior Court for revival of the investigation of the predicate offence. All consequential proceedings, including coercive action, emanating from the said ECIR/DLZO/II/72/2021 stand quashed Status quo ante be restored in favour of the respective petitioners,” the Court said.

It held that the Addendum to the ECIR seeking to initiate PMLA proceedings qua the first FIR as an additional scheduled offence was legally unsustainable.

“All consequential proceedings, including coercive action, emanating pursuant to the addendum are quashed. Status quo ante be restored in favour of the respective petitioners,” the Court ordered.

Justice Dayal said that by issuing the addendum after the original predicate offence had ceased to exist, the ED was effectively attempting to “breathe life” into a proceeding which had lost its foundational basis.

It was also observed that nothing prevented ED from independently registering an ECIR in relation to the first FIR, which admittedly continues to subsist, if the statutory requirements for doing so were otherwise satisfied. It chose not to do so, for reasons best known to it, it said.

The Court also took note of ED's claim that it came to know about the first FIR only in July 2025. However, it found that ED's own counter-affidavit filed in August 2023 had expressly referred to the said FIR.

Thus, the Court held that ED was aware of the earlier FIR at least since August 2023, but chose to rely upon it only after the Cancellation Report in the original predicate FIR was accepted.

Title: KANCHANA RAI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT NEW DELHI & ORS & other connected matters

Click here to read order