Case at a Glance
The promoter of Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., accused of cheating homebuyers in the ‘Krrish World’ project in Gurugram, sought quashing of the money-laundering prosecution pending before the PMLA Special Court at Gurugram and, in the alternative, its transfer to Delhi. The Supreme Court held that the PMLA prosecution was not without jurisdiction, since the homebuyers were defrauded and the proceeds acquired at Gurugram. But because part of the alleged offence — concealment of proceeds — occurred in Delhi, and the scheduled-offence FIR had already been transferred to Delhi, it transferred the PMLA case to the Special Judge, PMLA, Saket, Delhi, so that both could be tried together under Section 44(1) PMLA.
The petitioner was a promoter of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., which was developing the ‘Krrish World’ real estate project in Gurugram. Several FIRs between 2013 and 2022 alleging cheating of homebuyers formed the scheduled offences for ECIR/GNZO/04/2023 dated 03.03.2023; those were reportedly quashed or closed. The prosecution complaint (COMA/16/2025 dated 28.07.2025), pending before the Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, also relied on FIR No. 439/2024 dated 21.12.2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Gurugram under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 411, 420 and 471 IPC, and FIR No. 30/2019 of the EOW, Delhi, which partly survived under Sections 406 and 120B.
The writ petition sought quashing, but during arguments Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal confined the prayer to transfer of the PMLA case to Delhi, relying on a coordinate Bench order of 18.05.2026 (clarified on 21.05.2026) that had clubbed FIR No. 439/2024 with FIR No. 30/2019 and transferred the Gurugram case to Delhi. The Enforcement Directorate, through the Additional Solicitor General, alleged that about Rs 503 crore had been collected from purchasers for roughly 466 plots in a 151.57-acre project, that funds were diverted through group companies, and that about Rs 205 crore was routed through a shell company to a Sri Lankan subsidiary that bought property in Sri Lanka. Large tracts of land at Gurugram were attached as proceeds of crime.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the PMLA prosecution at Gurugram without jurisdiction, and should it be transferred to the PMLA Special Court in Delhi where the scheduled-offence case is now being tried?
Where Can a Money-Laundering Case Be Tried?
The Court restated the elements of money laundering — deriving, concealing, possessing, acquiring or using proceeds of crime and projecting them as untainted — relying on Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 02 SC CK 0007, (2023) 4 SCC 357. Reading Sections 43, 44 and 46 PMLA with Section 178(d) CrPC, it explained that a PMLA prosecution may be instituted in any Special Court within whose jurisdiction proceeds were derived, concealed, possessed, acquired, used or projected. Here, the “uncontroverted allegations in the prosecution complaint clearly disclose that the homebuyers were duped” and the proceeds were acquired at Gurugram, where the attached land lies. The prosecution therefore “cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and is not liable to be quashed”.
On transfer, the Court distinguished K.A. Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 04 SC CK 0006, (2023) 6 SCC 92, where transfer was declined, observing that “the ratio in a judgment cannot be treated like an Euclidean axiom”. In this case cash, jewellery, vehicles and fixed deposits had been seized or attached in Delhi, so part of the offence — concealment of proceeds — occurred there, giving both courts simultaneous jurisdiction. Since FIR No. 439/2024 had already been transferred to Delhi and Section 44(1) PMLA requires the money-laundering offence and the scheduled offence to be tried together, “it would be expedient for the ends of justice to transfer the present proceeding”.
What the Court Actually Held
- The PMLA prosecution at Gurugram was not without jurisdiction and was not liable to be quashed, since the homebuyers were allegedly defrauded and the proceeds acquired there.
- A PMLA case may be instituted wherever proceeds of crime were derived, concealed, possessed, acquired, used or projected; more than one Special Court can have simultaneous jurisdiction.
- Where the scheduled offence is being tried in Delhi and part of the PMLA offence occurred there, transfer serves Section 44(1) PMLA’s mandate of trying both together.
- The PMLA proceeding was transferred from the Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram to the Special Judge, PMLA, Saket Court Complex, Delhi, to proceed from the stage at which it is pending; the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Real-estate frauds against homebuyers often span several cities; the ruling explains where the money-laundering case can be tried.
- It confirms that quashing or closure of some scheduled offences does not end a PMLA case if other scheduled offences survive.
- It applies Section 44(1) PMLA to keep the scheduled offence and the laundering case before the same forum.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Homebuyers
- The PMLA case continues; it has only moved to the Special Court at Saket, Delhi, from the stage at which it was pending.
- Attachments of property as proceeds of crime were not disturbed by this order.
For Counsel
- Map where proceeds were derived, concealed and attached; each location may confer PMLA jurisdiction under Rana Ayyub.
- Where the scheduled offence has been transferred, seek transfer of the PMLA case under Section 44(1) for joint trial.
- Distinguish K.A. Rauf Sherif on facts where part of the offence occurred in the transferee court’s area.
Key Takeaways
- PMLA jurisdiction follows the proceeds of crime: where derived, concealed, used or projected.
- More than one Special Court may have simultaneous jurisdiction.
- Section 44(1) favours trying the PMLA offence and scheduled offence together.
- The Krrish Realtech PMLA case will proceed in Saket, Delhi.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court quash the PMLA case against Amit Katyal?
No. It held the Gurugram prosecution was within jurisdiction and not liable to be quashed, but transferred it to the PMLA Special Court at Saket, Delhi.
Why was the case transferred to Delhi?
Because part of the offence (concealment of attached proceeds) allegedly occurred in Delhi and the scheduled-offence FIR had already been transferred there, and Section 44(1) PMLA requires both to be tried together.
Is this a final finding on the fraud allegations?
No. The Court only recorded the ED’s allegations for deciding jurisdiction and transfer; guilt is for the trial court.
Conclusion
Amit Katyal v. Union of India is a practical guide to territorial jurisdiction under the PMLA: the case can be tried where the money was taken or hidden, and courts may move it to keep it alongside the predicate offence.
Practical takeaway: In multi-city fraud cases, track where the scheduled offence is being tried; a transfer of the predicate case can justify a transfer of the PMLA case too.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com