The Supreme Court of India has held that a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) can be instituted in any Special Court within whose territorial jurisdiction any component of the money laundering offence occurs, such as where the proceeds of crime are derived, obtained, concealed, possessed, acquired, used, or projected. In an order passed by a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the court directed the transfer of the money laundering case against promoter Amit Katyal from Gurugram, Haryana, to Saket Courts, Delhi. The court found that because a part of the proceeds of crime was attached in Delhi and the primary scheduled offence had already been transferred there, a joint trial in Delhi was necessary to satisfy the statutory mandate of the PMLA.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Amit Katyal, was a promoter of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (Krrish), which was developing a real estate project named ‘Krrish World’ in Gurugram. Multiple criminal cases alleging various illegal activities, including the cheating of homebuyers, were registered against Krrish, its group companies, and its directors, including Katyal.
Citing six such cases (FIR Nos. 674/2013, 221/2013, 244/2013, 52/2016, 178/2020, and 30/2022), the Enforcement Directorate registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR/GNZO/04/2023) on March 3, 2023. Under this ECIR, Prosecution Complaint No. COMA/16/2025 was filed before the Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, Haryana.
Katyal initially approached the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of the prosecution complaint on the grounds that the primary scheduled offences had been quashed or closed. However, during the course of arguments, Senior Counsel representing Katyal restricted the prayer solely to transferring the PMLA prosecution from Gurugram to the Special Court under the PMLA at Delhi.
Arguments of the Parties
Representing the petitioner, Senior Counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal argued that a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court had already clubbed the active scheduled offence, FIR No. 439/2024 (registered at Gurugram), with an earlier case, FIR No. 30/2019 (registered at Delhi), and transferred the Gurugram FIR to Delhi. Consequently, he submitted that the connected PMLA prosecution should also be transferred to Delhi to facilitate a joint trial.
Opposing both the quashing and the transfer, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Mr. Anil Kaushik argued that the PMLA prosecution was fully within jurisdiction. He submitted that during the investigation of the ECIR, fresh evidence surfaced showing that the directors and promoters of Krrish and its sister concerns were involved in cheating investors and homebuyers. This led to the registration of a new scheduled offence, FIR No. 439/2024, by the Economic Offences Wing, Gurugram Police, under sections 120B, 406, 409, 411, 420, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He also cited a pending Delhi case, FIR No. 30/2019, under sections 406 and 120B of the IPC.
On the question of territorial jurisdiction, the ASG detailed that Katyal, through Krrish, had allegedly duped innocent homebuyers of Rs. 503 crore by dishonestly representing a 151.57-acre residential project in Gurugram. The prosecution alleged that these funds were diverted through multiple group companies. Specifically, a shell company named M/s Mahadev Infratech Pvt. Ltd. was allegedly used to siphon approximately Rs. 205 crore to a Sri Lankan subsidiary, M/s Krrish Transworks Colombo (Private) Ltd., to purchase immovable properties there, with funds routed back via fictitious journal entries. Since vast tracts of land in Gurugram were attached as proceeds of crime, the respondent argued that the Gurugram court possessed the correct territorial jurisdiction.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court analyzed the statutory framework of the PMLA alongside the facts of the case. Referencing its decision in Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court observed that the offence of money laundering encompasses any process of deriving, concealing, possessing, acquiring, using, or projecting proceeds of crime as untainted money.
The court noted that Section 43 of the PMLA provides for the constitution of Special Courts, while Section 44 directs that PMLA offences and connected scheduled offences should be tried by the Special Court for the area where the offence is committed. Applying Section 178(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) via Section 46 of the PMLA, the court explained that if an offence consists of multiple acts done in different areas, any court with territorial jurisdiction over any such area can try the case. Thus, PMLA prosecution can be instituted in any Special Court where the proceeds of crime are derived, obtained, concealed, possessed, acquired, used, or projected.
While the court agreed that the initial institution of the trial in Gurugram was valid since the homebuyers were duped there and vast tracts of land were attached there, it noted a critical distinction regarding the transfer prayer.
The respondent had relied on KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors to oppose the transfer. Distinguishing that precedent, the court noted that in the present case, a significant portion of the alleged proceeds of crime (including cash, jewellery, vehicles, and fixed deposits of the petitioner) was seized or attached in Delhi. This established concurrent or simultaneous jurisdiction for both Delhi and Gurugram courts.
Rejecting a rigid application of past precedents, the court observed: “It is trite that the ratio in a judgment cannot be treated like an Euclidean axiom and must be read in the facts of each case.”
The Court’s Decision
The bench concluded that since a part of the money laundering offence occurred in Delhi through the concealment of attached proceeds of crime, both Delhi and Gurugram courts have simultaneous jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the court took note of the statutory mandate under Section 44(1) of the PMLA, which directs that both the PMLA offence and the scheduled offence should be tried by the same Special Court. Because the primary scheduled offence (FIR No. 439/2024) had already been transferred to Delhi, the bench held that transferring the PMLA proceedings to Delhi would serve the ends of justice.
The Supreme Court directed that the PMLA proceedings pending before the Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, Haryana, be transferred to the Special Judge, PMLA, Saket Court Complex, Delhi. The transferee court has been directed to proceed with the case from the stage at which it is currently pending.
Case Details
Case Title: Amit Katyal v. Union of India & Anr.
Case No.: Writ Petition(s)(Crl.) No(s). 57/2026
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date: July 14, 2026
