New Delhi: The ED does not require an FIR lodged by any enforcement agency for any scheduled offense to initiate investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).Lifting the stay on ED’s investigation against Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL), a publicly listed company of Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by CMRL on the grounds that the ED’s money laundering probe is independent of the existence of a scheduled offence.A day after the Kerala High Court verdict, the ED on Wednesday began searches at nine premises in Thiruvananthapuram, including the residence of former Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan, where he was staying with his daughter Veena, one of the accused who allegedly received Rs 2.8 crore from CMRL without providing any IT services, as claimed.Justice TR Ravi of the Kerala High Court rejected petitioner CMRL’s challenge against the summons issued by the enforcement agency, saying “the issue of summons was only for the purpose of investigation and there is no need to even register an FIR”.Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (supra), Justice Ravi said that “non-filing of FIR in respect of a scheduled offense does not prevent the initiation of inquiry/investigation by the authorities referred to in section 48 of the PMLA for initiating civil action for provisional attachment of property.”The court further observed that “The word ‘investigation’ has been defined in Section 2(n)(a) to include all proceedings taken by the Director or the authorized authority to collect evidence. A reading of the summons issued would show that what has been initiated is merely an investigation.”The judge said, “It is not possible to tell at this stage what will be the outcome of the investigation. As the Supreme Court has already laid down the law that existence of FIR is not a pre-condition for issuing summons under Section 50 of the PML Act, the same has to be followed only by this court.”The court said that the writ petition has been filed prematurely and is not maintainable against the summons issued under Section 50 PMLA. It further said that the exemption under the Income Tax Settlement Mechanism does not bar PMLA proceedings and the powers of the ED are independent of the final report of the SFIO or prosecution.Dismissing the petition, the court said that the subsequent filing of the SFIO prosecution complaint “cured the main objection of the petitioners regarding the absence of the prescribed offence”.