A Delhi sessions court has declined to interfere with the cheating and criminal conspiracy proceedings against M3M India Pvt Ltd, its subsidiary companies and several individuals in a Gurugram land dispute, allowing the criminal case to proceed on the allegation that the agreed consideration for a land exchange was not paid, news agency ANI reported on Sunday.
Source: ANI via LatestLY
Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna upheld the cognisance taken for cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and for criminal conspiracy and common intention under Sections 120B and 34, leaving the accused free to raise their submissions before the magistrate when charges are considered. The court passed the order on October 17 while disposing of two revision petitions against the Chief Judicial Magistrate's January 31, 2026 order, which had taken cognisance on the basis of a police chargesheet.
The judge, however, set aside the cognisance for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. The court held that breach of trust requires entrustment of property or dominion over it, followed by dishonest misappropriation, whereas the prosecution's own case is that the land was transferred through formal exchange deeds against consideration — not entrusted on trust or faith. 'Even if all the allegations contained in the first information report are taken at face value and accepted, even then, they do not constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust qua the petitioners,' the court observed, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh on the distinction between cheating and breach of trust.
According to the prosecution case as reported by ANI, the FIR was registered on a complaint by MGF Developments Ltd, which alleged that the accused obtained rights over land in Chauma, Gurugram, through exchange deeds and assurances that the agreed monetary consideration would be paid. The transaction allegedly involved exchanging the Chauma land for land in Mohammadpur Gujar, Gurugram, plus an additional monetary consideration; MGF alleged that post-dated cheques issued towards the payment were dishonoured despite repeated assurances and replacements, that the accused companies got the land mutated in their favour and applied for a licence to develop a residential project without fulfilling the payment obligations, and that it suffered substantial financial losses. These are allegations in the complaint and chargesheet and have not been proved.
The accused argued that the dispute is essentially civil and commercial, arising from contractual obligations under the exchange deeds, questioned MGF Developments' locus standi to complain, and pointed to the civil litigation between the parties and the deposit of consideration, including interest, in court. The sessions court declined to examine these contentions in detail at the revision stage, saying revisional jurisdiction does not permit a detailed assessment of evidence, and that at the cognisance stage a magistrate only needs sufficient grounds to proceed, not a likelihood of conviction. The court directed the parties, including Basant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal and Pankaj Bansal, to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tis Hazari Courts on October 27, 2026, and directed the magistrate to proceed expeditiously with the case under Sections 420, 120B and 34. The revision petitions were filed by M3M India Pvt Ltd, Starcity Realtech Pvt Ltd, Cosmo Probuild Pvt Ltd, Surya Propcorn Pvt Ltd and Neer Builders Pvt Ltd, along with several individuals.
Source: ANI via Khelja