Godrej Properties Ltd vs Directorate Of Enforcement

$~111
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 28 October, 2026

# CNR No. DLHC010422462026
+ W.P.(CRL) 2753/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27710/2026, CRL.M.A.
27711/2026
GODREJ PROPERTIES LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. and Mr.
Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., with
Mr. Kapil Madan, Mr. Siddharth
Yadav, Mr. Deepanshu Khanna, Mr.
Utkarsh Tiwari, Mr. Harshvardhan
Pandey, Ms. Kashish Ahuja, Mr.
Amartya Kanjilal, Ms. Punya Rekha
Angara, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms.
Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjan
Singh Mandla and Mr. Ayush Singh,
Advocates
Mob: 9625332281
Email: [email protected]

versus

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT …..Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Nair, Mr. Sarthak Sehgal,
Mr. Alok Dubey, Mr. Devashish
Dixit, Mr. Priyanshu Yadav and Mr.
Ashirwad Shukla, Advocates
Mob: 9580752119

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral) :

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 1 of 5

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution”) read with Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), for quashing of the
Enforcement Case Information Report (“ECIR”), being ECIR No. DLZO-
II/9/2024, registered by the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), and all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
impugned ECIR was registered solely on the basis of the First Information
th
Report (“FIR”), being FIR No. 0064/2024 dated 29 May, 2024, under
Sections 406/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), registered
at Police Station (“PS”) Economic Offences Wing (“EOW”), Delhi, arising
from a civil and commercial dispute between the petitioner and the
complainant company, i.e., the M/s Orris Infrastructure Private Limited
(“Orris”).
3. He submits that the parties have fully and finally settled all their
disputes and the Orris has already withdrawn all the allegations, statements,
and claims against the petitioner company herein and its directors, officers,
employees and representatives.
th
4. This court is informed that vide order dated 25 August, 2026, this
Court has already quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
th
5. The said order dated 25 August, 2026, reads as under:
“ CRL.M.A. 26353/2026 ( by resp. 2- for early hearing)
1. The instant application stands allowed.
2. The matter is taken up for hearing today itself.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 2 of 5

3. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 1874/2024
4. Mr. Saurabh Kripal, learned senior counsel for respondent
no.2, on instructions of the Ms. Avneet Kaur, Authorized
Representative of respondent no.2, submits that respondent no.2
does not want to pursue the complaint case, and the application
under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.
PC) which was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
He contends that in view of the aforesaid fact, the order dated
28.05.2024 passed by the said Court directing the registration of
the FIR would not survive, and, consequently, even the FIR in
question i.e. FIR 0064/2024 dated 29.05.2024 under section 406,
420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 will have to be set
aside.

5. Since Mr. Kirpal on instructions has made the aforesaid
submissions, which are not rightly objected by Mr. N.
Hariharan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The sole
grievance of the petitioner in the instant petition i.e. to set aside
the FIR 0064/2024 dated 29.05.2024 and all consequent action
thereto, stands satisfied.

6. Since the submission made by Mr. Kirpal would suffice the
grievance raised by the petitioner, therefore, the impugned
complaint case bearing no. 610/2024; the order dated
28.05.2024 passed by the competent Court and FIR 0064/2024
dated 29.05.2024 and all consequent actions emanating
therefrom stand set aside.

7. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.”

6. Thus, it is submitted that since the sole scheduled offence has ceased
to exist and no proceeds of crime survive, continuation of the impugned
ECIR and any action arising therefrom is without jurisdiction and the
respondent has no jurisdiction to continue any inquiry, investigation or any
action under the PMLA.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute the
position that the FIR against the petitioner already stands quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 3 of 5

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, at the outset,
this Court notes that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and Others Versus Union of India and Others, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 929 , wherein, it has been held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
109. Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or
obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence that can be regarded as proceeds
of crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to
action against any person for money laundering on an
assumption that the property recovered by them must be
proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been
committed, unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional
police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the
competent forum. For, the expression “derived or obtained” is
indicative of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence
already accomplished. Similarly, in the event the person named
in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally
absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order
of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal
case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no
action for money laundering against such a person or person
claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the
stated scheduled offence. This interpretation alone can be
countenanced on the basis of the provisions of the 2002 Act, in
particular Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any other
view would be rewriting of these provisions and disregarding the
express language of the definition clause “proceeds of crime”,
as it obtains as of now.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. This Court notes that the impugned ECIR was recorded solely on the
th
basis of the FIR, i.e., FIR No. 0064/2024 dated 29 May, 2024, registered at
PS EOW, Delhi, under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC, which arose
th
pursuant to an order dated 28 May, 2023, by the Chief Metropolitan
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 4 of 5

Magistrate (“CMM”), South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, upon the
complaint case bearing CC 610/2024 , made by the Authorised
Representative (“AR”) of the Orris, i.e., the complainant company, under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1860 (“CrPC”).
th
10. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 25 August, 2026, in
W.P.(CRL.) 1874/2024 , this Court, as aforesaid, has already quashed the
predicate FIR and all consequent actions emanating proceedings therefrom.
11. In view of the aforesaid, it is manifest that the quashing of the
predicate FIR has extinguished the sole foundation of the impugned ECIR,
which cannot survive independently on the basis of allegations arising from
the proceedings that no longer exist in law.
12. Thus, the impugned ECIR proceedings have lost their substratum,
there being no subsisting schedule offence, nor any proceeds of crime.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court finds that there is no impediment in allowing the present petition.
14. Accordingly, ECIR No. DLZO-II/9/2024 registered by the ED, and all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
15. Needless to state that in case the proceedings under FIR No.
0064/2024 are revived by any party in future, the respondent shall be at
liberty to revive the proceedings with respect to ECIR.
16. Accordingly, the present petition along with the pending applications
is disposed of, in terms of the aforesaid.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 28, 2026
AK
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 5 of 5