ORDER

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. Ltd. [Hereinafter “Krrish”] which was developing a real estate project titled ‘Krrish World’ in Gurugram.

(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.

(iii) Citing 6 such cases² [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], 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, 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 transferred the former to Delhi³ [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)]. 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 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;

(iii) projected/claimed as untainted money⁴, Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 4 SC