Can a PMLA Case Be Transferred to Another Special Court When the Scheduled Offence Is Already Being Tried There?

Case Name: Amit Katyal v. Union of India & Anr.

Date of Judgment: 14 July 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 702; Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 57 of 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Held: The Supreme Court held that a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) may be tried by any Special Court having territorial jurisdiction over any part of the offence of money laundering, including where the proceeds of crime were derived, concealed, possessed, acquired, used or projected as untainted property. While holding that the Special Court at Gurugram had valid jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution, the Court transferred the proceedings to the PMLA Court at Delhi because the principal scheduled offence had already been transferred there. The Court observed that such transfer would give effect to Section 44 of the PMLA, which contemplates that the money laundering case and the connected scheduled offence should ordinarily be tried by the same Special Court in the interests of justice.

Summary: The petitioner, a promoter of Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of a prosecution complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act arising out of an Enforcement Directorate investigation into alleged diversion of funds collected from homebuyers in a Gurugram real estate project. During the hearing, however, the petitioner confined his relief to seeking transfer of the PMLA proceedings from the Special Court at Gurugram to the Special Court under the PMLA at Delhi. The Enforcement Directorate opposed the request, contending that the alleged proceeds of crime were generated in Gurugram, where the project was situated and where substantial immovable properties had also been attached during the investigation.

The Supreme Court first rejected the contention that the prosecution itself lacked jurisdiction. It noted that the investigation disclosed allegations of cheating of homebuyers involving more than ₹503 crore, diversion of funds through group companies, creation of shell entities, and acquisition of properties using the proceeds of crime. Referring to Sections 43, 44 and 46 of the PMLA, read with Section 178(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court held that an offence of money laundering comprises several interconnected activities and may therefore be tried by a Special Court exercising jurisdiction over any place where the proceeds of crime were generated, concealed, possessed, acquired, used or projected as legitimate property. Since the proceeds of crime had originated in Gurugram and properties there had been attached, the Gurugram Special Court undoubtedly possessed territorial jurisdiction.

The Court nevertheless found that part of the alleged proceeds of crime, including cash, jewellery, vehicles and fixed deposits, had also been attached in Delhi. More importantly, a connected scheduled offence had already been transferred by the Supreme Court from Gurugram to Delhi. In these circumstances, the Court distinguished its earlier decision in KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement and held that both Delhi and Gurugram Special Courts possessed concurrent jurisdiction. To ensure compliance with Section 44 of the PMLA, which envisages joint trial of the money laundering offence and the connected scheduled offence before the same Special Court, the Court concluded that transferring the PMLA proceedings to Delhi would better serve the ends of justice.

Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that the PMLA proceedings pending before the Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, Haryana be transferred to the Special Judge, PMLA, Saket Court Complex, Delhi. It clarified that the prosecution would continue before the transferee court from the stage at which it was pending in Gurugram. While affirming that the Gurugram court had valid territorial jurisdiction, the Court ordered the transfer to facilitate a common trial with the connected scheduled offence already pending before the Delhi court.