Image: IANS New Delhi: Delhi high court Monday sought responses from Congress MPs Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and other accused on an ED plea challenging a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of the agency’s charge-sheet in the National Herald money laundering case, while declining to grant any immediate stay.Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notice on ED’s petition and on a connected application seeking a stay of the Dec 16 order, listing the matter for a detailed hearing on March 12, 2026.The trial court had held that cognisance of ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” because the probe was not founded on a FIR under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), but arose from a private complaint.The case centres on alleged misuse of funds and transfer of control of Associated Journals Ltd – publisher of National Herald – to Young Indian, a private company tied to Congress functionaries. ED has accused the Gandhis, Congress functionaries Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young Indian of conspiracy and money laundering.Appearing for ED, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the trial court failed to appreciate that the PMLAprobe rested on scheduled offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy under IPC, of which cognisance had already been taken by a magistrate and upheld through Supreme Court. That placed the case on a firmer legal footing than a police FIR, he said.Mehta contended that cognisance taken by a competent court on a private complaint carried a higher legal standing than an FIR, where cognisance could still be declined even after a charge-sheet. He said PMLA does not prescribe how a scheduled offence must be registered, requiring only the existence of allegations of criminal activity relating to such offences, not that they necessarily arise from an FIR.During the hearing, the court asked whether cognisance of the private complaint was taken after examination of the complainant. Mehta replied in the affirmative and said witnesses had also been examined.Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Gandhis, opposed any interim relief. “There is a perspective, contrary to what my friend has said,” he submitted, as the court proceeded to issue notice without granting a stay.The trial court had ruled that investigation and filing of a charge-sheet for money laundering were “not maintainable” without an FIR under PMLA, stressing that ED’s action flowed from a private complaint. Having declined cognisance on a question of law, it said other arguments on merits need not be examined.The court also recorded that despite receiving a complaint from BJP’s Subramanian Swamy and a summoning order in 2014, CBI did not register an FIR for the alleged scheduled offences.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosNew Video Reveals Final Moments of Hindu Man Dipu Before Lynching in BangladeshIndians Trapped By H-1B Renewal Chaos As US VP JD Vance Defends Visa Curbs As Christian PoliticsEx-TMC MLA Humayun Kabir Launches New Party, Targets Mamata Banerjee Ahead of PollsMuhammad Yunus Interim Rule Sparks Alarm, Indian Diplomats Back Hasina On Anti India Narrative ShiftYogi Adityanath Says Vande Mataram Became Victim of Congress Appeasement PoliticsNew Zealand India FTA Sparks Coalition Rift As PM Christopher Luxon Backs Deal, NZ First Rejects ItGujarat Student Says He Was Forced To Fight For Russia As Indians Remain Trapped Ukraine War CrisisPTI Leaders Hold Massive Protest in Peshawar Against Imran Khan’s 17-Year Jail SentenceBangladesh Turmoil: Another Youth Leader Shot In Head Days After Osman Hadi’s KillingAravalli Hills Row: Why Definition Battle Could Decide Mining Water Security And AQI In North India123PhotostoriesDoes Niagara Falls freeze over in winter? Here’s the truth5 reasons why okra water has become a go-to drink for people who want to manage their sugar levelsFrozen but fearless: 5 snowy animals that rule the coldest places on earthHbA1c over 6%? Nephrologist shares tests that matter beyond this level of blood sugarWhy should you add this leaf powder to your homemade winter soups? Here’s how you can make this super healthy soup10 most loved countries in the world in 2025Discover the secret of financial success according to your birth dateTop 10 richest countries in the world in 20257 simple fruit plants ideal for a lush balcony garden6 quirky book titles that instantly spark curiosity at first glance123Hot PicksUAE WeatherEpstein files releasedGold price predictionGold rate todaySilver rate todayPublic Holidays DecemberBank Holidays DecemberTop TrendingTom BradyDeshaun WatsonShai Gilgeous Alexander NBA ContractLeBron JamesVictor WembanyamaLos Angeles DodgersPaul Heyman and Marla Heyman Net WorthRavens vs PatriotsJason KelceCharles Barkley
New Delhi: Delhi high court Monday sought responses from Congress MPs Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and other accused on an ED plea challenging a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of the agency’s charge-sheet in the National Herald money laundering case, while declining to grant any immediate stay.Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notice on ED’s petition and on a connected application seeking a stay of the Dec 16 order, listing the matter for a detailed hearing on March 12, 2026.The trial court had held that cognisance of ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” because the probe was not founded on a FIR under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), but arose from a private complaint.The case centres on alleged misuse of funds and transfer of control of Associated Journals Ltd – publisher of National Herald – to Young Indian, a private company tied to Congress functionaries. ED has accused the Gandhis, Congress functionaries Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young Indian of conspiracy and money laundering.Appearing for ED, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the trial court failed to appreciate that the PMLAprobe rested on scheduled offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy under IPC, of which cognisance had already been taken by a magistrate and upheld through Supreme Court. That placed the case on a firmer legal footing than a police FIR, he said.Mehta contended that cognisance taken by a competent court on a private complaint carried a higher legal standing than an FIR, where cognisance could still be declined even after a charge-sheet. He said PMLA does not prescribe how a scheduled offence must be registered, requiring only the existence of allegations of criminal activity relating to such offences, not that they necessarily arise from an FIR.During the hearing, the court asked whether cognisance of the private complaint was taken after examination of the complainant. Mehta replied in the affirmative and said witnesses had also been examined.Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Gandhis, opposed any interim relief. “There is a perspective, contrary to what my friend has said,” he submitted, as the court proceeded to issue notice without granting a stay.The trial court had ruled that investigation and filing of a charge-sheet for money laundering were “not maintainable” without an FIR under PMLA, stressing that ED’s action flowed from a private complaint. Having declined cognisance on a question of law, it said other arguments on merits need not be examined.The court also recorded that despite receiving a complaint from BJP’s Subramanian Swamy and a summoning order in 2014, CBI did not register an FIR for the alleged scheduled offences.
