While observing that the part of offence under Section 4 of the Prevention Of Money Laundering Act had occurred by way of concealment of ‘proceeds of crime’ attached at Delhi, the Supreme Court has transferred a real estate money laundering case involving Lalu Yadav’s aide Amit Katyal from Gurugram to Delhi.

The petitioner had approached the Apex Court seeking quashing of a prosecution complaint pending before the Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, Haryana. The plea before the Apex Court was restricted to transferring the PMLA case from Gurugram to the Special Court under PMLA at Delhi.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held, “In the present case, part of the offence u/s 4 of the PMLA had occurred by way of concealment of ‘proceeds of crime’ attached at Delhi. This gives simultaneous jurisdiction to the PMLA Court at Delhi and Gurugram to try such offence. We also take note of the fact that the scheduled offence being FIR No.439/2024 stands transferred to Delhi. In this backdrop, to give effect to the statutory mandate u/s 44(1) of the Act which provides both the offence under PMLA and the scheduled offence are to be tried by a Special Court having jurisdiction to try the PMLA offence, it would be expedient for the ends of justice to transfer the present proceeding to the Special Court under PMLA at Delhi.”

Advocate Shiv Vinayak Gupta represented the Appellant while Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner was a promoter of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. which was developing a real estate project titled ‘Krrish World’ in Gurugram. Alleging various illegal activities including cheating of homebuyers, a number of criminal cases were registered against Krrish, its group companies and Directors, including the petitioner. Citing such cases, an Enforcement Case Information Report came to be registered. In view of the fact that the said scheduled offences had been quashed/closed, prayer was made to quash the ECIR.

The Additional Solicitor General brought to the Court’s attention that a prosecution complaint recorded that during the investigation of the impugned ECIR, further evidence disclosing involvement of Directors/promoters of Krrish and its sister concerns in cheating investors and homebuyers with respect to various projects had surfaced. On such basis, a new scheduled offence was registered by Economic Offences Wing, Gurugram Police, Haryana under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 411, 420 and 471 IPC,1860. It was also brought to the Court’s notice that the prosecution complaint referred to an earlier case, registered at the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, which, though partly quashed, was pending under Sections 406, 120B IPC,1860.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that the offence of money laundering consists of any process or activity whereby ‘proceeds of crime’ are derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity, concealed, possessed, acquired, or used and projected/claimed as untainted money. The Bench further stated that Section 43 of the PMLA provides for the constitution of Special Courts to try offences under the Act and Section 44, provides that the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA and any scheduled offence connected therewith shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed.

The Bench stated, “Accordingly, prosecution u/s 4 of the PMLA may be instituted in any one of the Special Courts constituted u/s 43 of the Act within whose territorial jurisdiction the ‘proceeds of crime’ is either derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity or wherever it is concealed, possessed, acquired, used or projected/claimed as untainted property.”

The Bench took note of the uncontroverted allegations in the prosecution complaint that the homebuyers were duped and the ‘proceeds of crime’ were acquired at Gurugram, where the project was situated. Considering that vast tracts of land at Gurugram constituting ‘proceeds of crime ’ had been attached, the Bench held that the institution of PMLA prosecution at Gurugram could not be faulted.

Considering that the part of the offence under section 4 of the PMLA had occurred by way of concealment of ‘proceeds of crime’ attached in Delhi, which gave simultaneous jurisdiction to the PMLA Court at Delhi and Gurugram to try such offence, the Bench directed the PMLA proceeding pending before the Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, Haryana to be transferred to the Special Judge, PMLA, Saket Court Complex, Delhi.

“The prosecution shall proceed at such transferee Court from the stage at which it is presently pending at Gurugram”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Amit Katyal v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 702)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Shiv Vinayak Gupta, AOR Bina Gupta, Advocates Anushka Rawal, Himani Singh

Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, Advocates Zoheb Hussain, Pranjal Singh, Arkaj Kumar, Digvijay Dam, AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma

Click here to read/download Judgment


CJI Surya KantJustice Joymalya Bagchi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.