Amit Katyal vs Union Of India
- Court
- Supreme Court
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 702
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION(S)(CRL.) NO(S).57/2026
AMIT KATYAL ….PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Though petitioner had prayed for quashing of Prosecution
Complaint No. COMA/16/2025 dated 28.07.2025 arising out of
ECIR/GNZO/04/2023 dated 03.03.2023, pending before the
Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, Haryana, Mr. Kapil Sibal,
learned Senior Counsel during arguments restricted his prayer to
transfer of the PMLA case from Gurugram to the Special Court
under PMLA at Delhi.
2. The factual synopsis is as follows:-
(i) The Petitioner was a promoter of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt.
1
Ltd. which was developing a real estate project titled ‘Krrish
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2026.07.14
17:10:27 IST
Reason:
World’ in Gurugram.
1
Hereinafter “Krrish”
Page 1 of 7
(ii) 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.
2
(iii) Citing 6 such cases , ECIR/GNZO/04/2023 dated
03.03.2023 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.
(iv) Rebutting such claim, Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned ASG drew
our attention to the prosecution complaint which, inter alia,
records that during investigation of the impugned ECIR,
further evidence disclosing involvement of
Directors/promoters of Krrish and its sister concerns in
cheating of investors and homebuyers with respect to
various projects had surfaced. On such basis, a new
scheduled offence, FIR No.439/2024 dated 21.12.2024 was
registered by Economic Offences Wing, Gurugram Police,
Haryana u/s 120B, 406, 409, 411, 420 and 471 IPC,1860.
Prosecution complaint also referred to an earlier case,
2
FIR No.674/2013 dated 03.10.2013, FIR No.221/2013 dated 29.10.2013, FIR No.244/2013
dated 16.11.2013, FIR No.52/2016 dated 02.05.2016, FIR No.178/2020 dated 06.11.2020 &
FIR No.30/2022 dated 17.02.2022
Page 2 of 7
namely FIR No.30/2019 registered at Economic Offences
Wing, Delhi which though partly quashed was pending u/s
406, 120B IPC,1860.
3. Given these facts, it is rightly contended that the impugned PMLA
prosecution arising out of the aforesaid scheduled offences cannot
be said to be without jurisdiction and is not liable to be quashed.
4. However, Mr. Sibal contends that a Coordinate Bench of this
Court has clubbed the aforequoted scheduled offence, namely FIR
No.439/2024 at Gurugram with the earlier case being FIR
No.30/2019 registered at Economic Offences Wing, Delhi and
3
transferred the former to Delhi . Under these circumstances, the
learned Senior Counsel submits the present PMLA prosecution
may also be transferred to Delhi.
5. This prayer too is opposed by Mr. Kaushik, learned ASG who
argues that the petitioner through Krrish had duped a sum of Rs.
503 Crore from innocent homebuyers on the dishonest
representation of developing 466 residential plots in a 151.57
acres project at Gurugram. These monies were diverted through
multiple group companies which were not involved in the
development or construction project. A shell company namely
3
W.P. (Crl) No. 67/2025 - order dated 18.05.2026 (as clarified vide order dated 21.05.2026
in MA (Diary) No. 31664/2026)
Page 3 of 7
M/s Mahadev Infratech Pvt. Ltd. was created to siphon off
approximately Rs. 205 Crores to a Sri Lankan subsidiary M/s
Krrish Transworks Colombo (Private) Ltd, and immovable
properties were procured at Sri Lanka. Funds were also routed
back via fictitious journal entries without any banking
transactions to Krrish.
6. During investigation, vast tracts of land at Gurugram were
attached. As the ‘proceeds of crime’ were derived out of criminal
activity at Gurugram and part of such proceeds in the form of
immovable property had been attached therein, prosecution
complaint came to be filed before Special Judge, PMLA,
Gurugram, Haryana.
7. Offence of money laundering consists of any process or activity
whereby ‘proceeds of crime’ are –
(i) derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity;
(ii) concealed, possessed, acquired, or used;
4
(iii) projected/claimed as untainted money
8. Section 43 of the PMLA provides for the constitution of Special
Courts to try offences under the Act. Section 44, inter alia ,
4
Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement , (2023) 4 SCC 357, See Paras 19 to 20
Page 4 of 7
provides that the offence punishable u/s 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 word ‘offence has been committed’ means
the offence under the PMLA which comprises one or many of the
processes or activities as delineated hereinabove. Section 178(d)
of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 states when an offence
consists of several acts which are done in different local areas, the
Court having jurisdiction over any of such areas may enquire and
try the offence. As per Section 46 of the PMLA, procedure under
the Code, unless inconsistent with the Special Act, would apply to
the proceeding before the Special Court. 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,
5
acquired, used or projected/claimed as untainted property .
9. Uncontroverted allegations in the prosecution complaint clearly
disclose that the homebuyers were duped and the ‘proceeds of
crime’ were acquired at Gurugram where the project was situated.
Vast tracts of land at Gurugram constituting ‘proceeds of crime’
5
See Rana Ayyub (supra), Paras 41 to 42
Page 5 of 7
have been attached. Given this situation, institution of PMLA
prosecution at Gurugram cannot be faulted.
10. In KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors , prayer for
transfer of proceeding, inter alia , made on the grounds of - (i) lack
of jurisdiction, (ii) remand of accused and (iii) convenience of
6
accused and witnesses was declined . Unlike KA Rauf (supra),
prayer for transfer is to be viewed in light of the averments in the
prosecution complaint which show part of the offence, i.e.,
‘proceeds of crime’ such as cash, jewellery, vehicles, FDs of
petitioner were seized/attached at Delhi. Moreover, the scheduled
offence being FIR No.439/2024 has been clubbed with FIR
No.30/2019 and stands transferred to Delhi. 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. In view of the aforesaid
significant factual differences, KA Rauf (supra) is clearly
inapplicable to this case.
11. 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
6
(2023) 6 SCC 92, See Paras 12 to 15
Page 6 of 7
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.
12. Accordingly, we direct 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. With this direction,
the writ petition stands disposed of.
…………………………………., CJI
( SURYA KANT )
………………………………………, J
( JOYMALYA BAGCHI )
NEW DELHI,
JULY 14, 2026.
Page 7 of 7