Delhi High Court quashes ED money-laundering case against Godrej Properties
The Delhi High Court on 28 October 2026 quashed the ED's PMLA case against Godrej Properties, holding that it could not survive after the police FIR it rested on was quashed.
Key points
- The Delhi High Court on 28 October 2026 quashed the ED's money-laundering case (ECIR) against Godrej Properties.
- The court held the ED case lost its basis after the police FIR, the only underlying offence, was quashed on 25 August 2026.
- The court said the ED may revive its case only if the FIR proceedings are revived in future.
Photo: MaxnaCarta / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0 (cropped). Representational image.
The Delhi High Court on 28 October 2026 quashed a money-laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Godrej Properties Ltd. The court held that the ED case could not continue because the police case it was based on had already been quashed. The ED did not dispute that the police case had been set aside, the judgment records.
What Happened
The ED had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report, or ECIR (the ED's equivalent of an FIR), numbered DLZO-II/9/2024, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). According to the judgment, it rested solely on an FIR of 29 May 2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, on a complaint by Orris Infrastructure Private Limited.
The company told the court that the dispute with Orris was a civil and commercial one and that the two had fully settled it. On 25 August 2026 the High Court had already set aside the complaint case and the FIR after Orris said it did not want to pursue them.
Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the court held that once the underlying offence, called the scheduled offence, is quashed, there can be no money-laundering action over property linked to it. With no scheduled offence and no proceeds of crime left, the court held, the ED case had lost its basis. It quashed the ECIR and all proceedings arising from it.
What It Means
The ruling applies a settled principle: a PMLA case depends on a live underlying crime. When that crime is quashed, discharged or ends in acquittal, the ED case falls with it.
The court added that if the FIR proceedings are revived by any party in future, the ED will be free to revive its case. The allegations in the original complaint were never tested at trial and were not findings of guilt; the company is presumed innocent, and due process under the court's order continues only if the FIR is revived.
Source: High Court judgment
Sources & Citations
- High Court judgment — Delhi High Court