The Supreme Court has transferred a money laundering prosecution arising out of an alleged ₹503 crore real estate fraud from Gurugram to the Special PMLA Court at Delhi and held that where different components of the alleged money laundering offence occur in different locations, multiple Special Courts may simultaneously possess jurisdiction, and proceedings may be transferred to ensure that the PMLA case is tried alongside the connected scheduled offence.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has observed that part of the alleged proceeds of crime—including cash, jewellery, vehicles and fixed deposits—had been seized or attached in Delhi, thereby giving the Delhi Special Court concurrent territorial jurisdiction over the alleged offence. Importantly, the connected scheduled offence had already been transferred to Delhi pursuant to an earlier order of the Supreme Court.
Although the petitioner had initially sought quashing of the Enforcement Directorate’s prosecution complaint and the underlying Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), the challenge was ultimately confined to seeking transfer of the PMLA proceedings from Gurugram to Delhi.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The petitioner was one of the promoters of Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in developing a large residential township project known as “Krrish World” in Gurugram. Multiple criminal cases were registered over the years against the company, its group entities and directors, alleging cheating of homebuyers and other financial irregularities. Based on six scheduled offences, the Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR in March 2023 and subsequently initiated proceedings under the PMLA.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that many of the scheduled offences forming the basis of the ECIR had either been quashed or closed. However, the Enforcement Directorate pointed out that during investigation fresh evidence had emerged showing wider fraudulent activities involving investors and homebuyers. This led to the registration of another scheduled offence—FIR No. 439 of 2024 by the Economic Offences Wing, Gurugram. The prosecution complaint also relied upon an earlier FIR registered by the Delhi Economic Offences Wing, which remained pending in part.
The Supreme Court observed that in light of these additional scheduled offences, the PMLA prosecution could not be described as being without jurisdiction or liable to be quashed merely because some earlier predicate offences had been closed.
According to the Enforcement Directorate, the accused collected nearly ₹503 crore from innocent homebuyers by promising development of 466 residential plots spread across approximately 151.57 acres in Gurugram. Instead of utilising these funds for the housing project, substantial amounts were allegedly diverted through multiple group companies.
The prosecution alleged that a shell company, Mahadev Infratech Pvt. Ltd., was created to siphon nearly ₹205 crore to a Sri Lankan subsidiary, Krrish Transworks Colombo (Private) Ltd., where immovable properties were allegedly acquired. The investigation further claimed that funds were routed back through fictitious journal entries without actual banking transactions. During investigation, several properties in Gurugram were provisionally attached as alleged “proceeds of crime.”
The principal issue before the Court was whether the PMLA proceedings should continue before the Special Court in Gurugram or be transferred to Delhi after the connected scheduled offence had already been transferred there by an earlier order of the Supreme Court.
The petitioner argued that since FIR No. 439 of 2024 had already been clubbed with an earlier Delhi FIR and transferred to Delhi, the connected money laundering prosecution should also be heard there to ensure consistency and compliance with Section 44 of the PMLA.
The Enforcement Directorate opposed the transfer, contending that the principal criminal activity occurred in Gurugram, where the housing project was situated and where substantial proceeds of crime had been generated and attached.
While examining the statutory framework, the Supreme Court analysed Sections 43, 44 and 46 of the PMLA together with Section 178(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Bench observed that the offence of money laundering comprises several interconnected processes, including deriving or obtaining proceeds of crime, concealing them, possessing them, acquiring or using them, and projecting them as untainted property.
Consequently, where different elements of the offence occur across different territorial jurisdictions, each competent Special Court may validly exercise jurisdiction over the prosecution. The Court clarified that a PMLA prosecution may therefore be instituted before any Special Court within whose jurisdiction the proceeds of crime are generated, concealed, possessed, acquired, used or projected as untainted.
The Court accepted that substantial proceeds of crime originated from the Gurugram real estate project and that attached immovable properties in Gurugram justified institution of the prosecution there. Accordingly, the filing of the complaint before the Special PMLA Court in Gurugram could not be faulted.
The Bench held that Section 44(1) of the PMLA contemplates that both the money laundering offence and the scheduled offence should ordinarily be tried by the same Special Court. To give effect to this statutory mandate and secure the ends of justice, transfer of the PMLA proceedings to Delhi was considered appropriate.
The Supreme Court directed that the pending PMLA proceedings before the Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, Haryana, be transferred to the Special Judge, PMLA, Saket Court Complex, Delhi.
The Court further directed that the prosecution should continue before the transferee court from the same procedural stage at which the case stood in Gurugram. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
