The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to quash a money laundering prosecution against real estate promoter Amit Katyal but ordered that the case be transferred from the Special PMLA Court in Gurugram to the Special PMLA Court at Saket, Delhi. The Court held that both Delhi and Gurugram had jurisdiction over the alleged offence and that transferring the matter would ensure that the PMLA case and the connected scheduled offence are tried consistently.
Background of the Case
Amit Katyal had approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the prosecution complaint arising from an Enforcement Directorate (ED) case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). However, during the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, limited the relief sought to transferring the PMLA proceedings from Gurugram to Delhi.
According to the order, Katyal was a promoter of Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., which developed the "Krrish World" real estate project in Gurugram. Multiple criminal cases alleging cheating of homebuyers had been registered against the company, its group entities and directors. During the ED investigation, a fresh scheduled offence, FIR No. 439/2024, was also registered by the Economic Offences Wing in Gurugram, while another connected case remained pending in Delhi.
Court's Observations
The Bench found no basis to quash the prosecution at this stage. It noted that the prosecution complaint referred to additional evidence collected during the investigation, making it inappropriate to hold that the proceedings lacked jurisdiction.
"The impugned PMLA prosecution... cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and is not liable to be quashed," the Bench observed.
The Court also examined the legal framework governing territorial jurisdiction under the PMLA. It explained that money laundering includes activities involving the derivation, concealment, possession, acquisition or projection of the alleged proceeds of crime. Since such activities can occur in different locations, jurisdiction may lie with more than one Special Court.
The Bench further noted that, according to the prosecution complaint, the alleged proceeds of crime were generated in Gurugram, where the real estate project was situated, and properties there had already been attached. At the same time, certain assets allegedly constituting proceeds of crime had also been attached in Delhi.
The Court took into account that FIR No. 439/2024, one of the scheduled offences linked to the PMLA case, had already been transferred and clubbed with a Delhi case. It held that trying both the scheduled offence and the connected PMLA prosecution before the same court would better serve the statutory scheme under the PMLA.
"The ends of justice" would be served by transferring the present proceedings to the Special PMLA Court in Delhi, the Bench observed.
Decision
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. It also ordered that the prosecution would continue before the transferee court from the stage at which the proceedings were pending in Gurugram. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: Amit Katyal vs. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 57 of 2026
Judge: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Decision Date: July 14, 2026
-300x169.webp)