Dismissed¶44

Sri Krishna K M v. the Directorate of Enforcement

PMLA – Provisional attachment under Section 5(1)

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2026WP/7155/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Krishna K.M. and others v. Directorate of Enforcement, WRIT PETITION NO. 7155 OF 2026 (GM-RES) (NC: 2026:KHC:16131, High Court of Karnataka, R. Nataraj J., 18.03.2026): writ petition against Provisional Attachment Order No.03/2026 dated 21.01.2026 under Section 5(1) PMLA in ECIR No.ECIR/BGZO/25/2024 dismissed as premature; challenge lies only after adjudication under Section 8 of the PMLA, with liberty reserved to challenge the Adjudicating Authority's order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to challenge the order that may be passed by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law. ¶44

Sri Krishna K M Vs the Directorate of Enforcement — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:16131 WP No. 7155 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7155 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KRISHNA K.M. S/O LATE MADHAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶9

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O KRISHNA K.M. AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶10

SRI. SRINIVAS K. S/O KRISHNA K.M. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.2375, 5^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGAR, PADUVARAHALLI MYSORE- 570012.

¶13

(BY SRI. SARAH MAGDALENE BENJAMIN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ZONAL OFFICE, 3^RD FLOOR, B-BLOCK BMTC, TTMC K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -560027.

¶17

THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY (PMLA) BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES ROOM NO.26, 4^TH FLOOR

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16131 WP No. 7155 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-1101.

¶21

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER MYSURU -570001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS LEADING THE PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER NO.03/2026 (IN ECIR NO. ECIR/BGZO/25/2024) DATED 21.01.2026 UNDER SECTION 5(1) OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A AND QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER NO.03/2026 (IN ECIR NO. ECIR/BGZO/25/2024) DATED 21.01.2026 UNDER SECTION 5(1) OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -A , ONLY AS REGARDS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners have called in question a provisional attachment order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (henceforth referred to as 'PMLA') in Case No.3/2026 (ECIR No.ECIR/BGZO/25/2024).

¶27

(i) Petitioners contend that they had purchased a site formed in Sy.No.157/1 situated at Hinakal Village, Kasaba

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16131 WP No. 7155 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. It is contended that Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) without issuing any notification proposing to acquire the land in Sy.No.157/1, had acquired it. Later, the owner of the land in Sy.No.157/1 had entered into a settlement with MUDA to receive 50% of the developed sites in the aforesaid land. The petitioners submit that a relinquishment deed was executed on 21.02.2023 in terms of which, 26,838 sq. ft. was agreed to be granted to the petitioners' vendor. However, in terms of an endorsement dated 20.03.2023 issued by MUDA, it was stated that further steps cannot be taken to confer title on the vendor of the petitioners in respect of 26,838 sq. ft. in view of a notification issued on 21.02.2023.

¶31

(ii) The petitioners' vendor questioned the correctness of the said notification in W.P.No.7102/2023. The said writ petition was allowed and it was held that the Circular dated 14.03.2023 issued by the State Government cannot bar a compromise in O.S.No.348/2020. Accordingly, the endorsement issued by MUDA was set aside. Out of the sites that were identified by MUDA, the owner conveyed one of the sites to the petitioners in terms of a sale deed dated 19.07.2023. It is contended that this land was mired in a litigation under the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:16131 WP No. 7155 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

provisions of the PMLA and that several proceedings were pending before several authorities and later, only the site allotted to the predecessor of the petitioners was provisionally attached under Section 5(1) of the PMLA.

¶36

(iii) The petitioners therefore, being aggrieved by the said order of provisional attachment are before this Court.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have lawfully purchased the site from their vendor and that as on the date of the purchase, there were no proceedings pending and hence, the property in question cannot be provisionally attached under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. Besides this, he contends that the petitioners cannot be exposed to a long drawn litigation as the property purchased by them is not out of the proceeds of crime.

¶38

A perusal of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners' property shows that it is under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, which is provisional in nature. The right to challenge the order of attachment would arise only after an order is passed under Section 8 of the PMLA. Therefore, this petition is too premature and this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to set at

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:16131 WP No. 7155 of 2026

¶40

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

nought the proceedings for provisional attachment of the property.

¶43

In that view of the matter, this petition is

¶44

dismissed . However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the order that may be passed by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶47

PMR

Sri Krishna K M v. the Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishna K M v. the Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G Manjunatha Vs Union of India

Mr Peddanna Vs Mr Marappa P

P K Sadananda Vs Raghavendra

Harish M Vs State by Kodigehalli P S

Anil Siddaram Takkalaki Vs State by Kodigehalli P.S

M/S Hotel Amar International Indi Vs M/S Durga Hotel and Hospitality Services