SUPREME COURT REDEFINES PMLA JURISDICTION: HOW CONCEALMENT OF CRIME PROCEEDS IN DELHI SHIFTED THE GURUGRAM REALTY FRAUD CASE
In a Landmark Order, the Apex Court Transfers the Money Laundering Case of Real Estate Promoter Amit Katyal to Delhi, Citing Simultaneous Jurisdiction Under Section 4 of PMLA
Resolving Jurisdictional Multiplicity: The Interplay of Predicate Offences, Attached Properties, and Statutory Mandates Under Section 44(1)
By Legal Editor
New Delhi: July 16, 2026:
In a decision with deep structural implications for white-collar criminal defence and real estate litigation in India, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of , ordered the transfer of a high-profile money laundering prosecution. The case, which was pending before the Special Judge for the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in Gurugram, Haryana, has been transferred to the Special Judge, PMLA, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi.
The division bench, consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, addressed a fundamental procedural conflict: where should a money laundering case be prosecuted when the underlying fraud and acquisition of crime proceeds occur in one state, but the concealment, attachment, and related scheduled trial proceed in another?
The petitioner, Amit Katyal—a promoter of M/s Krrish Realtech Private Limited—sought the transfer of the prosecution complaint arising from an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR). The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifying this issue relies on a meticulous reading of Sections 4, 43, and 44 of the .
By establishing that the concealment of attached assets in Delhi grants simultaneous jurisdiction to Delhi courts, the Supreme Court has set a clear precedent for resolving jurisdictional issues when proceeds of crime cross state borders.
Factual Underpinnings of the Krrish World Dispute
The genesis of the litigation lies in a large-scale real estate development project named "Krrish World" (also linked with Brahma City), situated across prime sectors in Gurugram, Haryana. The project, promoted by M/s Krrish Realtech Private Limited and its directors, including Amit Katyal, ran into severe delays. This left hundreds of homebuyers in limbo after they had collectively invested hundreds of crores.
According to investigative findings by the , Katyal and his associates allegedly defrauded innocent homebuyers of over ₹503 crore by representing that they were developing 466 residential plots on a 151.57-acre parcel of land in Gurugram.
The prosecution argued that these funds were diverted through an intricate web of holding and sister companies, such as Angle Infrastructure Private Limited, which was developing the "Krrish Florence Estate" in Sector 70, Gurugram. The investigation revealed that Katyal allegedly obtained project licenses fraudulently, collected buyer funds before getting mandatory approvals from Haryana’s Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), and diverted those funds.
Furthermore, the ED asserted that a shell company called M/s Mahadev Infratech Private Limited was utilized to siphon off approximately ₹205 crore to a Sri Lankan subsidiary, M/s Krrish Transworks Colombo (Private) Limited, to acquire overseas assets. Substantial loans from public sector banks were also diverted, resulting in an additional loss of nearly ₹80 crore to lenders.
As homebuyers began demanding refunds, multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were filed against Katyal. Specifically:
FIR No. 30/2019 was registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police, where complaints from 83 homebuyers were clubbed and investigated.
FIR No. 439/2024 was registered by the EOW of the Gurugram Police, charging Katyal under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 411, 420, and 471 of the IPC.
These FIRs served as the "scheduled" or "predicate" offences required to trigger a PMLA investigation, leading to the registration of the impugned ECIR by the Gurugram Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate.
Jurisdictional Conflict: Delhi vs. Gurugram
Because the physical real estate project was in Gurugram and vast tracts of land constituting the primary "proceeds of crime" were attached there, the ED filed its prosecution complaint before the Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram. The petitioner, represented by senior counsel, argued that since the primary predicate offence (FIR No. 30/2019, along with the subsequent FIR No. 439/2024 which had been clubbed and transferred to Delhi by a coordinate bench in ) was being prosecuted in Delhi, keeping the PMLA trial in Gurugram would violate the statutory intent of the PMLA.
The central issue for the Supreme Court was to interpret the territorial scope of money laundering trials. The offense under Section 3 of the PMLA, which is punishable under Section 4, is not a single, isolated event. Rather, it is a continuing process consisting of several distinct activities:
Deriving or obtaining proceeds of crime.
Concealing such proceeds.
Possessing them.
Acquiring them.
Using them.
Projecting or claiming them as untainted property.
Under Section 43 of the PMLA, the Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts, designates Special Courts to try offenses punishable under Section 4. Section 44(1)(a) provides that an offense punishable under Section 4, and any scheduled offense connected to it, must be tried by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offense has been committed.
The Supreme Court noted that because "proceeds of crime" were derived and acquired in Gurugram, the Gurugram court initially had valid jurisdiction. However, because a portion of those proceeds—consisting of valuable assets and bank accounts—was concealed or held under attachment within the territorial limits of New Delhi, a part of the offense under Section 4 also occurred in Delhi.
This concealment of assets gave simultaneous territorial jurisdiction to the Special PMLA Courts in both Delhi and Gurugram.
Harmonizing Sections 43 and 44(1) of the PMLA
The court's decision relies on Section 44(1) of the PMLA, which was designed to prevent conflicting judgments and ensure judicial efficiency. This section requires that both the PMLA money laundering trial and the underlying predicate trial be conducted together before the same Special Court.
[Proceeds of Crime]
Generated in Gurugram, HR
│
┌──────────────────┴──────────────────┐
▼ ▼
[Gurugram, Haryana] [New Delhi]
• Project site & land assets • Part of proceeds concealed
• Initial ED Complaint filed • Predicate FIRs clubbed/transferred
• Valid local jurisdiction • Simultaneous jurisdiction triggered
│ │
└──────────────────┬──────────────────┘
▼
[SUPREME COURT DECISION]
Transferred PMLA Case to Saket, Delhi
(To align with Section 44(1) mandate)
In , a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court had already clubbed the subsequent Gurugram FIR (No. 439/2024) with the landmark Delhi EOW FIR (No. 30/2019) and transferred the entire consolidated investigation to Delhi.
If the PMLA case had remained in Gurugram, it would have created a procedural split: the predicate criminal trial for cheating and criminal breach of trust would proceed in Delhi, while the money laundering case would proceed in Haryana.
To prevent this outcome and give full effect to the statutory mandate of Section 44(1), the Supreme Court exercised its powers to transfer the PMLA case. The Court ordered that the proceedings pending before the Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, be transferred to the Special Judge, PMLA, Saket Court Complex, Delhi. This ensures that both the predicate offenses and the laundering charges are heard within the same judicial ecosystem, promoting a more efficient and consistent trial.
Searchable Legal Index & Quick Reference FAQ
This section provides a searchable reference index of the key legal principles, statutory rules, and constitutional provisions discussed in the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case.
Index of Key Legal Provisions
Section 3, PMLA: Definition of the Offence of Money Laundering.
Section 4, PMLA: Punishment for Money Laundering.
Section 43, PMLA: Power to designate Special Courts for PMLA trials.
Section 44(1), PMLA: Exclusive jurisdiction of Special Courts and the requirement to try the PMLA case and the scheduled offence together.
Article 32, Constitution of India: Constitutional writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to protect fundamental rights.
Sections 154, 156 & 157, CrPC: Police powers of investigation and rules governing First Information Reports (FIRs).
Searchable FAQ
Q1: What did the Supreme Court decide in Amit Katyal v. Union of India (2026 INSC 702)?
Ans: The Supreme Court transferred the pending money laundering trial against real estate promoter from the Special PMLA Court in Gurugram, Haryana, to the Special PMLA Court at the Saket Court Complex in New Delhi.
Q2: What is the primary legal justification for transferring the case to New Delhi?
Ans: The Court identified two main justifications:
Simultaneous Jurisdiction: Part of the offense under Section 4 of the PMLA occurred in Delhi through the concealment of "proceeds of crime" attached there, giving both Delhi and Gurugram jurisdiction.
Statutory Mandate under Section 44(1): The related predicate/scheduled criminal cases had already been transferred to Delhi. Section 44(1) requires that both the PMLA offense and the connected scheduled offenses be tried by the same Special Court to avoid split trials.
Q3: How is territorial jurisdiction determined for a money laundering offense under the PMLA?
Ans: Under Sections 43 and 44 of the PMLA, territorial jurisdiction lies with the Special Court where the money laundering offense was committed. Because money laundering is a multi-stage process, a trial can be initiated in any Special Court within whose territorial limits the "proceeds of crime" were:
Derived or obtained,
Concealed,
Possessed,
Acquired,
Used, or
Projected/claimed as untainted property.
Q4: What is a "scheduled offence" or "predicate offence" under the PMLA, and why does it matter?
Ans: A scheduled or predicate offence is an underlying crime (such as cheating, forgery, or corruption under the IPC) that generates the illegal funds. The ED cannot register an ECIR or prosecute anyone under the PMLA unless there is an active, registered scheduled offense. In this case, the predicate offenses included Delhi EOW FIR No. 30/2019 and Gurugram FIR No. 439/2024.
Q5: Can a PMLA prosecution continue if the original scheduled offenses are quashed or resolved?
Ans: Generally, under established PMLA jurisprudence, if the scheduled/predicate offenses are completely quashed or the accused is acquitted, the money laundering case cannot stand on its own. However, in this case, the Supreme Court rejected Katyal's prayer to quash the ECIR because the ED showed that subsequent investigations had uncovered further cheating, which led to a new, active scheduled offense (FIR No. 439/2024) under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 411, 420, and 471 of the IPC.
Q6: What does Section 44(1) of the PMLA require regarding joint trials?
Ans: Section 44(1)(a) mandates that the offense punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, and any connected scheduled offense, must be tried by the Special Court designated for the area where the PMLA offense was committed. If the scheduled offense is pending before a different court, it must be transferred to the Special Court handling the PMLA case to ensure they are tried together.
Q7: What are the key allegations of financial fraud against Amit Katyal and Krrish Realtech?
Ans: The Enforcement Directorate alleges that:
The promoters defrauded homebuyers of approximately ₹503 crore for a Gurugram project ("Krrish World") without securing necessary licenses and approvals.
Funds were siphoned off through shell companies (e.g., M/s Mahadev Infratech) to foreign subsidiaries in Sri Lanka to purchase overseas properties.
Substantial public sector bank loans were diverted, causing a loss of roughly ₹80 crore to the lender.
Licensed land worth ₹130 crore was undervalued and transferred during insolvency proceedings, which the ED described as an abuse of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Analytical Conclusions: Procedural Lessons
The Supreme Court's ruling in highlights several key principles for future white-collar criminal proceedings:
Jurisdictional Flexibility: The Court affirmed that money laundering is a continuing offense. By recognizing that the concealment of attached assets in a particular territory establishes local jurisdiction, the Court has given the ED and the judiciary flexible options for trial venues when assets are distributed across states.
Strict Enforcement of Section 44(1): The Court prioritized judicial efficiency by strictly enforcing the requirement that predicate and laundering trials be held together. This prevents a fragmented system where different courts in different states hear related parts of the same overall fraud.
Protection Against Double Jeopardy vs. Continuous Actions: While the Court protected the accused from multiple split trials, it clarified that new evidence of fraud can support new predicate FIRs and keep a PMLA prosecution active, even if some of the older, initial FIRs have been resolved or quashed.
This judgment provides a clear roadmap for managing complex financial crime prosecutions that span multiple states, emphasizing the need to coordinate and unify trials in a single judicial forum.